PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWFQ.L (iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS) and TDGB.L (VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF) are both Global Equities funds - IWFQ.L tracks the MSCI ACWI NR USD while TDGB.L tracks the Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFQ.L returned 11.52%/yr vs 17.70%/yr for TDGB.L. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFQ.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for TDGB.L.

Performance

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - 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 Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with IWFQ.L having a 8.70% return and TDGB.L slightly higher at 8.92%.

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%

TDGB.L

1D
0.48%
1M
-0.06%
YTD
8.92%
6M
11.77%
1Y
29.00%
3Y*
20.13%
5Y*
17.70%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
IWFQ.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		8.70%7.40%18.93%19.15%-9.55%25.17%10.93%20.38%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF		8.92%30.88%10.65%9.06%22.49%19.59%-5.61%10.74%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFQ.L and TDGB.L is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.48

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

0.45

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

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2019

0.66

The correlation between IWFQ.L and TDGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (3 years) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWFQ.L
TDGB.L

Technology

32.2%
0.3%

Financial Services

14.1%
31.7%

Industrials

9.8%
3.9%

Healthcare

9.4%
14.4%

Communication Services

9.1%
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
10.1%

Energy

4.2%
19.7%

Basic Materials

3.3%
1.2%

Utilities

2.5%
6.2%

Real Estate

1.7%
0.0%

Technology

IWFQ.L
32.2%
TDGB.L
0.3%

Financial Services

IWFQ.L
14.1%
TDGB.L
31.7%

Industrials

IWFQ.L
9.8%
TDGB.L
3.9%

Healthcare

IWFQ.L
9.4%
TDGB.L
14.4%

Communication Services

IWFQ.L
9.1%
TDGB.L
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IWFQ.L
8.8%
TDGB.L
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

IWFQ.L
5.1%
TDGB.L
10.1%

Energy

IWFQ.L
4.2%
TDGB.L
19.7%

Basic Materials

IWFQ.L
3.3%
TDGB.L
1.2%

Utilities

IWFQ.L
2.5%
TDGB.L
6.2%

Real Estate

IWFQ.L
1.7%
TDGB.L
0.0%

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 Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS 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 TDGB.L:
TDGB.L vs. VHYL.ASTDGB.L vs. SCHDTDGB.L vs. SPYDTDGB.L vs. LDEG.LTDGB.L vs. VHYD.LTDGB.L vs. JEGP.LTDGB.L vs. CSKR.L

Return for Risk

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L — 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
TDGB.L
TDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
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. TDGB.L - 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 Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.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.

IWFQ.LTDGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.26
3.15

-0.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.21
4.38

-1.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.59

-0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.15

6.26

-3.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.27

20.72

-7.45

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. TDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is comparable to the TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFQ.L and TDGB.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

IWFQ.LTDGB.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.26

3.15

-0.88

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

1.55

-0.69

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.92

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.89

0.98

-0.09

Drawdowns

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -23.91%, smaller than the maximum TDGB.L drawdown of -29.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFQ.L and TDGB.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWFQ.LTDGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.91%

-29.60%

+5.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.01%

-4.66%

-2.35%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.96%

-12.41%

-5.55%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.96%

-12.41%

-5.55%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.91%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.47%

+1.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.62%

-3.70%

+0.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.67%

1.41%

+0.26%

Volatility

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L) have volatilities of 2.56% and 2.49%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWFQ.LTDGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.56%

2.49%

+0.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.09%

7.01%

+0.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.75%

9.28%

+0.47%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.36%

11.42%

+1.94%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.35%

14.44%

-0.09%

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFQ.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than TDGB.L's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFQ.L vs. TDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

IWFQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TDGB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.20%.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
IWFQ.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF		3.20%3.50%4.27%4.93%4.40%4.06%4.16%4.52%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWFQ.L and TDGB.L have a correlation of 0.48, 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 0.38% for TDGB.L.

IWFQ.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while TDGB.L tracks Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IWFQ.L and 0.38% for TDGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWFQ.L and TDGB.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