RODM vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

RODM (Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. RODM is passively managed, while UMMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RODM returned 20.09%/yr vs 22.19%/yr for UMMA. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RODM charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

RODM vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) 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, RODM achieves a 9.95% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 30.40% return.

RODM

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -1.99%
• YTD: 9.95%
• 6M: 9.50%
• 1Y: 22.82%
• 3Y*: 20.09%
• 5Y*: 9.54%
• 10Y*: 9.29%

UMMA

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 5.16%
• YTD: 30.40%
• 6M: 30.71%
• 1Y: 49.17%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RODM vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	9.95%	34.42%	8.02%	15.76%	-14.22%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	30.40%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between RODM and UMMA is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.77

The correlation between RODM and UMMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.77 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RODM vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RODM	UMMA
Financial Services	26.6%	0.0%
Industrials	16.7%	12.1%
Technology	10.5%	48.2%
Healthcare	9.0%	14.8%
Basic Materials	6.4%	8.8%
Energy	6.3%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.0%	7.3%
Communication Services	5.5%	1.0%
Utilities	4.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.0%	5.0%
Real Estate	3.5%	0.4%

Return for Risk

RODM vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RODM

RODM Risk / Return Rank: 74
RODM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
RODM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RODM Omega Ratio Rank: 74
RODM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RODM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 73
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 74
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

RODM vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) 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.

	RODM	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.18	-0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	2.81	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.39	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	3.31	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.73	12.63	+0.10

RODM vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RODM Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RODM 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

RODM vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RODM drawdown since its inception was -35.98%, which is greater than UMMA's maximum drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RODM and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RODM	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.98%	-34.17%	-1.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.10%	-14.93%	+7.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.58%	-18.73%	+8.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.34%	-4.42%	+2.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.35%	-9.73%	+3.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.80%	3.90%	-2.10%

Volatility

RODM vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) is 3.21%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 12.07%. This indicates that RODM 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

	RODM	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	12.07%	-8.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.76%	20.30%	-11.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.94%	22.74%	-11.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.45%	21.08%	-7.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.07%	21.08%	-6.01%

RODM vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RODM has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

RODM vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

RODM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.83%, more than UMMA's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	2.83%	3.11%	4.09%	4.42%	3.81%	4.41%	2.82%	2.82%	2.03%	2.24%	3.19%	2.60%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.94%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RODM and UMMA in my portfolio?

RODM and UMMA have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RODM or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (12.07%) compared to RODM (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RODM dropped -35.98% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, RODM or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 22.19% vs 20.09% for RODM. On fees, RODM is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, RODM has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RODM or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 22.19% return vs 20.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RODM or UMMA?

RODM is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

RODM has the higher dividend yield at 2.83%, compared with 0.94% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between RODM and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Hartford and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for RODM and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 2.10), 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.