ILOW vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ILOW (AB International Low Volatility Equity ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. ILOW is actively managed, while UMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, ILOW returned 11.03% vs 53.55% for UMMA. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ILOW charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

ILOW vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB International Low Volatility Equity ETF (ILOW) and Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ILOW achieves a 4.82% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 32.49% return.

ILOW

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 1.39%
• YTD: 4.82%
• 6M: 6.86%
• 1Y: 11.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UMMA

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 14.49%
• YTD: 32.49%
• 6M: 35.58%
• 1Y: 53.55%
• 3Y*: 22.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ILOW vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ILOW AB International Low Volatility Equity ETF	4.82%	26.99%	-1.37%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	32.49%	26.65%	-7.11%

Correlation

The correlation between ILOW and UMMA is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 16, 2024	0.75

The correlation between ILOW and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

ILOW vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ILOW	UMMA
Financial Services	31.4%	-
Industrials	18.6%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	11.3%	5.6%
Technology	10.6%	42.9%
Healthcare	7.3%	16.6%
Communication Services	6.5%	0.8%
Utilities	3.9%	-
Energy	3.3%	2.9%
Real Estate	3.2%	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	2.4%	8.1%
Basic Materials	1.6%	9.3%

Return for Risk

ILOW vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILOW

ILOW Risk / Return Rank: 25
ILOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
ILOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
ILOW Omega Ratio Rank: 23
ILOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
ILOW Martin Ratio Rank: 30

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 75
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 75
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

ILOW vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB International Low Volatility Equity ETF (ILOW) and Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA). 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.

	ILOW	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	2.68	-1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	3.53	-2.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.46	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	3.60	-2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.40	14.07	-9.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ILOW vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILOW Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILOW and UMMA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ILOW	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83	2.68	-1.85
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.58	+0.49

Drawdowns

ILOW vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILOW drawdown since its inception was -10.37%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILOW and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILOW	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.37%	-34.17%	+23.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.80%	-14.93%	+5.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.08%	-0.77%	-1.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.11%	-9.82%	+7.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.51%	3.82%	-1.31%

Volatility

ILOW vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB International Low Volatility Equity ETF (ILOW) is 4.47%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 7.64%. This indicates that ILOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ILOW	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.47%	7.64%	-3.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.12%	17.26%	-6.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.42%	20.10%	-6.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.56%	20.55%	-5.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.56%	20.55%	-5.99%

ILOW vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILOW has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILOW vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

ILOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, more than UMMA's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ILOW AB International Low Volatility Equity ETF	1.53%	1.60%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.93%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILOW and UMMA in my portfolio?

ILOW and UMMA have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ILOW or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (7.64%) compared to ILOW (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILOW dropped -10.37% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, ILOW or UMMA?

On 1-year performance, UMMA leads with 53.55% vs 11.03% for ILOW. On fees, ILOW is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ILOW has been the lower-risk option at 4.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILOW or UMMA?

Over the 1-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 53.55% return vs 11.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILOW or UMMA?

ILOW is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ILOW or UMMA?

ILOW has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.93% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between ILOW and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for ILOW and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 0.83), 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.