PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
INAA.L vs. FUSA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

INAA.L (iShares MSCI North America UCITS) and FUSA.L (Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - INAA.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while FUSA.L is a Dividend fund tracking the Fidelity US Quality Income Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, INAA.L returned 14.13%/yr vs 12.96%/yr for FUSA.L. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. INAA.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FUSA.L.

Performance

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI North America UCITS (INAA.L) and Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUSA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

INAA.L is traded in GBp, while FUSA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FUSA.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INAA.L achieves a 10.28% return, which is significantly higher than FUSA.L's 8.45% return.

INAA.L

1D
0.05%
1M
5.57%
YTD
10.28%
6M
10.24%
1Y
28.60%
3Y*
18.80%
5Y*
14.13%
10Y*
15.50%

FUSA.L

1D
0.00%
1M
4.49%
YTD
8.45%
6M
8.10%
1Y
24.90%
3Y*
15.03%
5Y*
12.96%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
INAA.L
iShares MSCI North America UCITS		10.28%9.48%26.59%19.48%-10.23%28.62%15.54%25.93%-6.58%
FUSA.L
Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc		8.45%8.02%20.04%12.14%0.13%27.42%8.73%26.82%-3.63%

Correlation

The correlation between INAA.L and FUSA.L is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

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

0.84

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

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2018

0.82

The correlation between INAA.L and FUSA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
INAA.L
FUSA.L

Technology

36.4%
35.0%

Financial Services

12.4%
12.6%

Communication Services

10.4%
10.6%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.3%

Industrials

8.2%
8.8%

Healthcare

8.1%
9.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
4.5%

Energy

4.1%
3.5%

Basic Materials

2.3%
2.2%

Utilities

2.1%
2.3%

Real Estate

1.8%
2.1%

Technology

INAA.L
36.4%
FUSA.L
35.0%

Financial Services

INAA.L
12.4%
FUSA.L
12.6%

Communication Services

INAA.L
10.4%
FUSA.L
10.6%

Consumer Cyclical

INAA.L
9.6%
FUSA.L
9.3%

Industrials

INAA.L
8.2%
FUSA.L
8.8%

Healthcare

INAA.L
8.1%
FUSA.L
9.1%

Consumer Defensive

INAA.L
4.6%
FUSA.L
4.5%

Energy

INAA.L
4.1%
FUSA.L
3.5%

Basic Materials

INAA.L
2.3%
FUSA.L
2.2%

Utilities

INAA.L
2.1%
FUSA.L
2.3%

Real Estate

INAA.L
1.8%
FUSA.L
2.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI North America UCITS

Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc

Often compared with INAA.L:
INAA.L vs. VNRT.ASINAA.L vs. EUE.LINAA.L vs. BIBDXINAA.L vs. MXUS.LINAA.L vs. VAPX.LINAA.L vs. VTIINAA.L vs. EFA
Often compared with FUSA.L:
FUSA.L vs. SCHDFUSA.L vs. DGRA.LFUSA.L vs. SPYFUSA.L vs. VUAA.LFUSA.L vs. DGRWFUSA.L vs. EQQB.DEFUSA.L vs. VUSA.AS

Return for Risk

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
INAA.L
INAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
INAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
INAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
INAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
INAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
FUSA.L
FUSA.L Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
FUSA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FUSA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
FUSA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
FUSA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
FUSA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI North America UCITS (INAA.L) and Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUSA.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.

INAA.LFUSA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.69
2.26

+0.43

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.59
3.14

+0.45

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.42

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.93

4.44

-0.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.18

16.80

-2.62

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INAA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the FUSA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INAA.L and FUSA.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

INAA.LFUSA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.69

2.26

+0.43

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

0.90

+0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.00

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.84

-0.10

Drawdowns

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INAA.L drawdown since its inception was -35.35%, which is greater than FUSA.L's maximum drawdown of -27.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INAA.L and FUSA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

INAA.LFUSA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.35%

-27.94%

-7.41%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.24%

-5.58%

-1.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.20%

-19.20%

-2.00%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.20%

-19.20%

-2.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.15%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.17%

0.00%

-0.17%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.71%

-3.35%

-1.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.01%

1.48%

+0.53%

Volatility

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI North America UCITS (INAA.L) is 2.63%, while Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUSA.L) has a volatility of 3.32%. This indicates that INAA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FUSA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

INAA.LFUSA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.63%

3.32%

-0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.13%

7.90%

-0.77%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.60%

10.99%

-0.39%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.42%

14.33%

+0.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.63%

16.94%

-1.31%

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

INAA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FUSA.L's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

INAA.L vs. FUSA.L - Dividend Comparison

INAA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, while FUSA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FUSA.L
Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
INAA.L
iShares MSCI North America UCITS		0.61%0.66%0.76%0.98%1.11%0.74%1.09%1.26%1.40%1.32%1.30%1.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

INAA.L and FUSA.L have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

FUSA.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for INAA.L.

INAA.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FUSA.L is Dividend. INAA.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while FUSA.L tracks Fidelity US Quality Income Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for INAA.L and 0.25% for FUSA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for INAA.L and FUSA.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