PCIG vs. UMMA

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

PCIG (Polen Capital International Growth ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCIG returned -8.85% vs 43.85% for UMMA. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCIG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

PCIG vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital International Growth ETF (PCIG) 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, PCIG achieves a -3.68% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 27.72% return.

PCIG

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 2.15%
• 6M: -8.43%
• YTD: -3.68%
• 1Y: -8.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

PCIG vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCIG Polen Capital International Growth ETF	-3.68%	-0.02%	-8.47%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	27.72%	26.65%	-0.92%

Correlation

The correlation between PCIG and UMMA is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.78

The correlation between PCIG and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

PCIG vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCIG	UMMA
Technology	23.3%	48.2%
Financial Services	8.6%	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	7.3%
Communication Services	5.8%	1.0%
Energy	5.7%	2.4%
Basic Materials	4.6%	8.8%
Healthcare	3.4%	14.8%
Industrials	2.2%	12.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.0%
Real Estate	-	0.4%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PCIG vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCIG

PCIG Risk / Return Rank: 5
PCIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PCIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PCIG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PCIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
PCIG Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

PCIG vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital International Growth ETF (PCIG) 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.

	PCIG	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.51	1.83	-2.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.59	2.42	-3.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.33	-0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.46	2.87	-3.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.99	10.58	-11.56

PCIG vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCIG Sharpe Ratio is -0.51, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCIG 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

PCIG vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCIG drawdown since its inception was -23.40%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCIG and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCIG	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.40%	-34.17%	+10.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.45%	-14.93%	-6.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.82%	-6.39%	-6.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.39%	-9.68%	+2.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.94%	4.05%	+5.89%

Volatility

PCIG vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Polen Capital International Growth ETF (PCIG) is 6.58%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 10.90%. This indicates that PCIG 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

	PCIG	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.58%	10.90%	-4.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.99%	21.06%	-5.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.39%	23.42%	-4.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.30%	21.18%	-2.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.30%	21.18%	-2.88%

PCIG vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCIG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCIG vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

PCIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than UMMA's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
PCIG Polen Capital International Growth ETF	0.15%	0.14%	0.36%	0.00%	0.00%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.95%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCIG and UMMA in my portfolio?

PCIG and UMMA have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCIG or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to PCIG (6.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCIG dropped -23.40% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, PCIG or UMMA?

On 1-year performance, UMMA leads with 43.85% vs -8.85% for PCIG. On fees, UMMA is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, PCIG has been the lower-risk option at 6.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCIG or UMMA?

Over the 1-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 43.85% return vs -8.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCIG or UMMA?

UMMA is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCIG.

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

UMMA has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.15% for PCIG.

What is the main difference between PCIG and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCIG and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs -0.51), 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.