INEQ vs. UMMA

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

INEQ (Columbia International Equity Income ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, INEQ returned 19.56%/yr vs 21.23%/yr for UMMA. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. INEQ charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

INEQ vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia International Equity Income ETF (INEQ) 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, INEQ achieves a 7.86% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 27.72% return.

INEQ

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: 0.44%
• 6M: 6.75%
• YTD: 7.86%
• 1Y: 23.14%
• 3Y*: 19.56%
• 5Y*: 12.35%
• 10Y*: 9.87%

UMMA

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: -1.75%
• 6M: 21.14%
• YTD: 27.72%
• 1Y: 43.85%
• 3Y*: 21.23%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

INEQ vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
INEQ Columbia International Equity Income ETF	7.86%	39.85%	6.02%	20.88%	-6.99%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	27.72%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between INEQ and UMMA is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.74

The correlation between INEQ and UMMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.74 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

INEQ vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	INEQ	UMMA
Financial Services	23.2%	0.0%
Industrials	13.3%	12.1%
Energy	12.1%	2.4%
Healthcare	12.0%	14.8%
Basic Materials	11.4%	8.8%
Communication Services	7.8%	1.0%
Technology	5.6%	48.2%
Consumer Cyclical	5.4%	7.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	5.0%
Utilities	2.8%	-
Real Estate	1.7%	0.4%

Return for Risk

INEQ vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

INEQ

INEQ Risk / Return Rank: 61
INEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
INEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
INEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 63
INEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
INEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 55

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 70
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 70
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

INEQ vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia International Equity Income ETF (INEQ) 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.

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.

	INEQ	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	1.83	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.35	2.42	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.33	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	2.87	-0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.67	10.58	-2.91

INEQ vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INEQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INEQ 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.

Drawdowns

INEQ vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INEQ drawdown since its inception was -41.71%, which is greater than UMMA's maximum drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INEQ and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	INEQ	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.71%	-34.17%	-7.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.56%	-14.93%	+5.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.38%	-18.73%	+4.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.51%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.71%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.02%	-6.39%	+3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.03%	-9.68%	+2.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.96%	4.05%	-1.09%

Volatility

INEQ vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia International Equity Income ETF (INEQ) is 3.95%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that INEQ 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

	INEQ	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.95%	10.90%	-6.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.33%	21.06%	-9.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.68%	23.42%	-9.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.31%	21.18%	-5.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.35%	21.18%	-4.83%

INEQ vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

INEQ has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

INEQ vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

INEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.68%, more than UMMA's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
INEQ Columbia International Equity Income ETF	9.68%	9.76%	3.11%	3.27%	3.57%	3.43%	2.64%	3.34%	7.25%	4.63%	2.52%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.95%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INEQ and UMMA in my portfolio?

INEQ and UMMA have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INEQ or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to INEQ (3.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INEQ dropped -41.71% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, INEQ or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 21.23% vs 19.56% for INEQ. On fees, INEQ is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, INEQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, INEQ or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 21.23% return vs 19.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INEQ or UMMA?

INEQ is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

INEQ has the higher dividend yield at 9.68%, compared with 0.95% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between INEQ and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Columbia Threadneedle and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for INEQ and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.66), 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.