PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Edge MSCIope Quality Factor UCITS (IEFQ.L) and iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF (Acc) (CMB1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IEFQ.L achieves a 6.26% return, which is significantly lower than CMB1.L's 15.96% return. Over the past 10 years, IEFQ.L has underperformed CMB1.L with an annualized return of 8.48%, while CMB1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 16.15% annualized return.


IEFQ.L

1D
0.04%
1M
-0.59%
6M
2.56%
YTD
6.26%
1Y
12.46%
3Y*
9.05%
5Y*
6.04%
10Y*
8.48%

CMB1.L

1D
-0.43%
1M
-3.30%
6M
14.36%
YTD
15.96%
1Y
31.83%
3Y*
27.05%
5Y*
21.15%
10Y*
16.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IEFQ.L
iShares Edge MSCIope Quality Factor UCITS
6.26%14.94%-0.69%12.31%-6.34%18.16%6.81%24.09%-5.58%14.65%
CMB1.L
iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF (Acc)
15.96%43.83%13.25%30.68%-3.56%18.29%1.52%24.83%-13.79%22.48%

Correlation

The correlation between IEFQ.L and CMB1.L is 0.68, 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

0.68

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.70

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.71

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 19, 2015

0.72

The correlation between IEFQ.L and CMB1.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IEFQ.L
CMB1.L

Financial Services

21.0%
48.1%

Industrials

19.3%
10.5%

Healthcare

13.2%
1.1%

Technology

12.4%
5.6%

Consumer Defensive

8.8%
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

6.6%
9.2%

Basic Materials

5.4%
0.5%

Utilities

5.1%
15.5%

Energy

4.5%
7.0%

Communication Services

3.1%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.7%
0.3%

Financial Services

IEFQ.L
21.0%
CMB1.L
48.1%

Industrials

IEFQ.L
19.3%
CMB1.L
10.5%

Healthcare

IEFQ.L
13.2%
CMB1.L
1.1%

Technology

IEFQ.L
12.4%
CMB1.L
5.6%

Consumer Defensive

IEFQ.L
8.8%
CMB1.L
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IEFQ.L
6.6%
CMB1.L
9.2%

Basic Materials

IEFQ.L
5.4%
CMB1.L
0.5%

Utilities

IEFQ.L
5.1%
CMB1.L
15.5%

Energy

IEFQ.L
4.5%
CMB1.L
7.0%

Communication Services

IEFQ.L
3.1%
CMB1.L
1.8%

Real Estate

IEFQ.L
0.7%
CMB1.L
0.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

IEFQ.L
IEFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
IEFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
IEFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank

CMB1.L
CMB1.L Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
CMB1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMB1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMB1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
CMB1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMB1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge MSCIope Quality Factor UCITS (IEFQ.L) and iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF (Acc) (CMB1.L). 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.


IEFQ.LCMB1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.37

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.28

3.17

-1.89

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.16

11.26

-7.10

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the CMB1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEFQ.L and CMB1.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -26.38%, smaller than the maximum CMB1.L drawdown of -56.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEFQ.L and CMB1.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IEFQ.LCMB1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-26.38%

-56.05%

+29.67%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.67%

-10.32%

+0.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.99%

-15.62%

+3.63%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.73%

-24.19%

+6.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.38%

-36.61%

+10.23%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.36%

-3.69%

+1.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.20%

-15.16%

+10.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.98%

2.91%

+0.07%

Volatility

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Edge MSCIope Quality Factor UCITS (IEFQ.L) is 2.77%, while iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF (Acc) (CMB1.L) has a volatility of 3.90%. This indicates that IEFQ.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMB1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IEFQ.LCMB1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.77%

3.90%

-1.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.57%

12.73%

-3.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.51%

15.21%

-3.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.71%

17.98%

-2.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.20%

20.03%

-4.83%

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IEFQ.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CMB1.L's 0.33% expense ratio.


Dividends

IEFQ.L vs. CMB1.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IEFQ.L nor CMB1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


IEFQ.L and CMB1.L have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IEFQ.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IEFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CMB1.L.

IEFQ.L tracks MSCI Europe NR EUR, while CMB1.L tracks FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IEFQ.L and 0.33% for CMB1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IEFQ.L and CMB1.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer