HLAL vs. TDVG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

HLAL (Wahed FTSE USA Shariah ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. HLAL is passively managed, while TDVG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, HLAL returned 14.12%/yr vs 10.13%/yr for TDVG. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

HLAL vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Wahed FTSE USA Shariah ETF (HLAL) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HLAL achieves a 12.36% return, which is significantly higher than TDVG's 8.26% return.

HLAL

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 12.36%
• 6M: 11.02%
• 1Y: 32.71%
• 3Y*: 19.05%
• 5Y*: 14.12%
• 10Y*: —

TDVG

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 8.26%
• 6M: 7.09%
• 1Y: 16.92%
• 3Y*: 15.63%
• 5Y*: 10.13%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HLAL vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HLAL Wahed FTSE USA Shariah ETF	12.36%	18.30%	16.70%	30.13%	-17.56%	28.64%	17.22%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	8.26%	14.80%	13.45%	13.95%	-10.15%	26.20%	12.97%

Correlation

The correlation between HLAL and TDVG is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020	0.83

The correlation between HLAL and TDVG shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.83 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HLAL vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HLAL	TDVG
Technology	51.2%	26.2%
Communication Services	16.8%	1.0%
Healthcare	10.4%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	5.6%	7.2%
Industrials	5.2%	13.6%
Energy	4.4%	5.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	6.9%
Basic Materials	2.5%	2.8%
Real Estate	0.8%	1.6%
Utilities	0.2%	3.8%
Financial Services	0.0%	19.3%

Return for Risk

HLAL vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

HLAL

HLAL Risk / Return Rank: 77
HLAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
HLAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
HLAL Omega Ratio Rank: 77
HLAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
HLAL Martin Ratio Rank: 78

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 58
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 56
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 60

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

HLAL vs. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Wahed FTSE USA Shariah ETF (HLAL) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	HLAL	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	1.75	+0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.12	2.51	+0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.31	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.22	2.35	+0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.74	9.64	+4.10

HLAL vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HLAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is higher than the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HLAL and TDVG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

HLAL vs. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HLAL drawdown since its inception was -33.57%, which is greater than TDVG's maximum drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HLAL and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	HLAL	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.57%	-19.20%	-14.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.20%	-7.24%	-2.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.67%	-14.02%	-7.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.18%	-19.20%	-3.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.42%	-0.61%	-4.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-3.72%	-1.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.39%	1.76%	+0.63%

Volatility

HLAL vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Wahed FTSE USA Shariah ETF (HLAL) has a higher volatility of 6.67% compared to T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) at 2.70%. This indicates that HLAL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDVG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HLAL	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.67%	2.70%	+3.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.63%	7.60%	+4.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.41%	9.76%	+4.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.80%	13.92%	+3.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.27%	13.90%	+6.37%

HLAL vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both HLAL and TDVG have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

HLAL vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

HLAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.47%, less than TDVG's 0.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
HLAL Wahed FTSE USA Shariah ETF	0.47%	0.53%	0.58%	0.72%	1.15%	0.78%	0.97%	0.72%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	0.98%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HLAL and TDVG in my portfolio?

HLAL and TDVG have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HLAL or TDVG?

HLAL has higher volatility (6.67%) compared to TDVG (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HLAL dropped -33.57% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, HLAL or TDVG?

On 5-year performance, HLAL leads with 14.12% vs 10.13% for TDVG. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, TDVG has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HLAL or TDVG?

Over the 5-year period, HLAL has performed better with a 14.12% return vs 10.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HLAL or TDVG?

HLAL and TDVG have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HLAL or TDVG?

TDVG has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.47% for HLAL.

What is the main difference between HLAL and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: Wahed and T. Rowe Price.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HLAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.75), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.