MCDS vs. EUSA
MCDS (JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF) and EUSA (iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. MCDS is actively managed, while EUSA is passively managed. Over the past year, MCDS returned 22.27% vs 19.17% for EUSA. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. MCDS charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for EUSA.
Performance
MCDS vs. EUSA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCDS achieves a 13.38% return, which is significantly higher than EUSA's 10.04% return.
MCDS
- 1D
- 0.44%
- 1M
- 3.13%
- YTD
- 13.38%
- 6M
- 13.62%
- 1Y
- 22.27%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EUSA
- 1D
- 0.81%
- 1M
- 3.88%
- YTD
- 10.04%
- 6M
- 10.00%
- 1Y
- 19.17%
- 3Y*
- 16.37%
- 5Y*
- 7.90%
- 10Y*
- 11.57%
MCDS vs. EUSA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF | 13.38% | 6.51% | 9.83% |
EUSA iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF | 10.04% | 10.24% | 8.15% |
Correlation
The correlation between MCDS and EUSA is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2024 | 0.96 |
The correlation between MCDS and EUSA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
MCDS vs. EUSA - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
MCDS
EUSA
Industrials
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Energy
Real Estate
Utilities
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
Communication Services
Industrials
MCDS
EUSA
Technology
MCDS
EUSA
Financial Services
MCDS
EUSA
Consumer Cyclical
MCDS
EUSA
Healthcare
MCDS
EUSA
Energy
MCDS
EUSA
Real Estate
MCDS
EUSA
Utilities
MCDS
EUSA
Consumer Defensive
MCDS
EUSA
Basic Materials
MCDS
EUSA
Communication Services
MCDS
EUSA
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MCDS vs. EUSA — Risk / Return Rank
MCDS
EUSA
MCDS vs. EUSA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) and iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA). 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.
| MCDS | EUSA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.12 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.28 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.99 | 2.46 | +0.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.12 | 9.76 | +1.36 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MCDS | EUSA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.69 | 1.63 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.47 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.63 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.00 | 0.71 | +0.29 |
Drawdowns
MCDS vs. EUSA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCDS drawdown since its inception was -22.50%, smaller than the maximum EUSA drawdown of -39.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCDS and EUSA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCDS | EUSA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.50% | -39.16% | +16.66% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.47% | -7.82% | +0.35% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -18.20% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -25.24% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -39.16% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.98% | -4.59% | +0.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.01% | 1.97% | +0.04% |
Volatility
MCDS vs. EUSA - Volatility Comparison
JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) has a higher volatility of 3.25% compared to iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) at 2.93%. This indicates that MCDS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EUSA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MCDS | EUSA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.25% | 2.93% | +0.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.86% | 8.75% | +1.11% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.21% | 11.80% | +1.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.94% | 16.95% | -0.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.94% | 18.34% | -1.40% |
MCDS vs. EUSA - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCDS has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than EUSA's 0.09% expense ratio.
Dividends
MCDS vs. EUSA - Dividend Comparison
MCDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, less than EUSA's 1.51% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EUSA iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF | 1.51% | 1.63% | 1.47% | 1.53% | 1.73% | 1.23% | 1.45% | 1.49% | 2.01% | 1.50% | 1.59% | 2.21% |
MCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF | 1.06% | 1.23% | 0.64% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.95, MCDS and EUSA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
MCDS has higher volatility (3.25%) compared to EUSA (2.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCDS dropped -22.50% vs EUSA's -39.16%.
On 1-year performance, MCDS leads with 22.27% vs 19.17% for EUSA. On fees, EUSA is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EUSA has been the lower-risk option at 2.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MCDS has performed better with a 22.27% return vs 19.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EUSA is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for MCDS.
EUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 1.06% for MCDS.
They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for MCDS and 0.09% for EUSA.
MCDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.63), 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.
Find the right allocation for MCDS and EUSA
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