PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWFQ.L vs. MOAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWFQ.L (iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS) and MOAT (VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFQ.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while MOAT is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWFQ.L returned 13.14%/yr vs 14.32%/yr for MOAT. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFQ.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for MOAT.

Performance

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFQ.L achieves a 8.70% return, which is significantly higher than MOAT's -0.47% return. Over the past 10 years, IWFQ.L has underperformed MOAT with an annualized return of 13.14%, while MOAT has yielded a comparatively higher 14.32% annualized return.

IWFQ.L

1D
0.95%
1M
3.22%
YTD
8.70%
6M
8.62%
1Y
22.16%
3Y*
15.22%
5Y*
11.52%
10Y*
13.14%

MOAT

1D
-0.77%
1M
2.97%
YTD
-0.47%
6M
-1.73%
1Y
16.61%
3Y*
8.40%
5Y*
9.19%
10Y*
14.32%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWFQ.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		8.70%7.40%18.93%19.15%-9.55%25.17%10.93%25.86%-2.34%12.47%
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF		-0.47%5.13%12.67%25.29%-3.39%25.29%11.47%29.67%4.57%12.53%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFQ.L and MOAT is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.45

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

0.43

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

0.47

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

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2014

0.56

The correlation between IWFQ.L and MOAT shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (3 years) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWFQ.L
MOAT

Technology

32.2%
32.8%

Financial Services

14.1%
6.7%

Industrials

9.8%
13.5%

Healthcare

9.4%
16.0%

Communication Services

9.1%
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
10.3%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
17.5%

Energy

4.2%

-

Basic Materials

3.3%

-

Utilities

2.5%

-

Real Estate

1.7%
0.8%

Technology

IWFQ.L
32.2%
MOAT
32.8%

Financial Services

IWFQ.L
14.1%
MOAT
6.7%

Industrials

IWFQ.L
9.8%
MOAT
13.5%

Healthcare

IWFQ.L
9.4%
MOAT
16.0%

Communication Services

IWFQ.L
9.1%
MOAT
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IWFQ.L
8.8%
MOAT
10.3%

Consumer Defensive

IWFQ.L
5.1%
MOAT
17.5%

Energy

IWFQ.L
4.2%
MOAT

-

Basic Materials

IWFQ.L
3.3%
MOAT

-

Utilities

IWFQ.L
2.5%
MOAT

-

Real Estate

IWFQ.L
1.7%
MOAT
0.8%

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 World Quality Factor UCITS

VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF

Often compared with IWFQ.L:
IWFQ.L vs. IUQF.LIWFQ.L vs. SWDA.LIWFQ.L vs. GGRA.LIWFQ.L vs. GERD.DEIWFQ.L vs. URTHIWFQ.L vs. GOGB.LIWFQ.L vs. MWMIX
Often compared with MOAT:
MOAT vs. SPYMOAT vs. VOOMOAT vs. BRK-AMOAT vs. SCHDMOAT vs. IVVMOAT vs. VTIMOAT vs. IOO

Return for Risk

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWFQ.L
IWFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
IWFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
MOAT
MOAT Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
MOAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MOAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
MOAT Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
MOAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
MOAT Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
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.

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). 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.

IWFQ.LMOATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.26
1.26

+1.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.21
1.83

+1.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.21

+0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.15

1.43

+1.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.27

3.92

+9.35

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

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is higher than the MOAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFQ.L and MOAT, 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

IWFQ.LMOATDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.26

1.26

+1.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

0.55

+0.31

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.92

0.78

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.89

0.86

+0.03

Drawdowns

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -23.91%, smaller than the maximum MOAT drawdown of -25.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFQ.L and MOAT.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWFQ.LMOATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.91%

-25.85%

+1.94%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.01%

-11.63%

+4.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.96%

-22.90%

+4.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.96%

-22.90%

+4.94%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.91%

-25.85%

+1.94%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-4.92%

+4.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.62%

-3.65%

+0.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.67%

4.25%

-2.58%

Volatility

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) is 2.56%, while VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) has a volatility of 3.57%. This indicates that IWFQ.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MOAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWFQ.LMOATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.56%

3.57%

-1.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.09%

9.57%

-2.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.75%

13.32%

-3.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.36%

16.80%

-3.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.35%

18.46%

-4.11%

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFQ.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than MOAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFQ.L vs. MOAT - Dividend Comparison

IWFQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MOAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWFQ.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF		1.38%1.36%1.37%0.86%1.25%1.08%1.46%1.31%1.79%1.07%1.17%2.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWFQ.L and MOAT have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IWFQ.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IWFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for MOAT.

IWFQ.L is categorized as Global Equities, while MOAT is Large Cap Blend Equities. IWFQ.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while MOAT tracks Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IWFQ.L and 0.47% for MOAT.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWFQ.L and MOAT

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