INTL.L vs. FOGB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

INTL.L (WisdomTree Artificial Intelligence UCITS ETF - USD Acc) and FOGB.L (Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD) are both Technology Equities funds - INTL.L tracks the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD while FOGB.L tracks the Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, INTL.L returned 14.46%/yr vs -8.73%/yr for FOGB.L. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. INTL.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for FOGB.L.

Performance

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in WisdomTree Artificial Intelligence UCITS ETF - USD Acc (INTL.L) and Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD (FOGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INTL.L achieves a 34.85% return, which is significantly higher than FOGB.L's 3.33% return.

INTL.L

• 1D: -3.03%
• 1M: -8.62%
• 6M: 28.33%
• YTD: 34.85%
• 1Y: 56.41%
• 3Y*: 25.07%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

FOGB.L

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 0.62%
• 6M: -1.77%
• YTD: 3.33%
• 1Y: -4.66%
• 3Y*: -5.08%
• 5Y*: -8.73%
• 10Y*: —

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

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
INTL.L WisdomTree Artificial Intelligence UCITS ETF - USD Acc	34.85%	14.50%	13.58%	48.71%	-35.12%	17.36%	29.45%
FOGB.L Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD	3.33%	-9.49%	-5.72%	-6.98%	-18.26%	2.56%	9.19%

Correlation

The correlation between INTL.L and FOGB.L is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2020	0.50

Over the past year, the correlation between INTL.L and FOGB.L has dropped to 0.21 - well below their long-term average of 0.50, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

INTL.L

INTL.L Risk / Return Rank: 74
INTL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
INTL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
INTL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 68
INTL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
INTL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 72

FOGB.L

FOGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 7
FOGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
FOGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
FOGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FOGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
FOGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Artificial Intelligence UCITS ETF - USD Acc (INTL.L) and Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD (FOGB.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.

	INTL.L	FOGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.96	-0.21	+2.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.50	-0.19	+2.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	0.98	+0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.72	-0.25	+3.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.67	-0.41	+11.08

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INTL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.96, which is higher than the FOGB.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INTL.L and FOGB.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.

Drawdowns

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INTL.L drawdown since its inception was -37.71%, smaller than the maximum FOGB.L drawdown of -43.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INTL.L and FOGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	INTL.L	FOGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.71%	-43.46%	+5.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.10%	-12.73%	-2.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.54%	-23.44%	-10.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.92%	-43.46%	+6.54%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.39%	-38.99%	+28.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.26%	-24.51%	+12.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.27%	7.79%	-2.52%

Volatility

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Artificial Intelligence UCITS ETF - USD Acc (INTL.L) has a higher volatility of 12.44% compared to Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD (FOGB.L) at 4.25%. This indicates that INTL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FOGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	INTL.L	FOGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.44%	4.25%	+8.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.12%	11.01%	+12.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.70%	15.10%	+13.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.48%	15.83%	+13.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.44%	15.43%	+14.01%

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

INTL.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than FOGB.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

INTL.L vs. FOGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither INTL.L nor FOGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INTL.L and FOGB.L in my portfolio?

INTL.L and FOGB.L have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, INTL.L or FOGB.L?

On fees, INTL.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, INTL.L or FOGB.L?

INTL.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FOGB.L.

What is the main difference between INTL.L and FOGB.L?

INTL.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while FOGB.L tracks Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Rize ETF. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for INTL.L and 0.45% for FOGB.L.