SCDS vs. ISMD

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

SCDS (JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF) and ISMD (Inspire Small/Mid Cap Impact ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. SCDS is actively managed, while ISMD is passively managed. Over the past year, SCDS returned 46.17% vs 41.80% for ISMD. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SCDS charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for ISMD.

Performance

SCDS vs. ISMD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS) and Inspire Small/Mid Cap Impact ETF (ISMD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with SCDS having a 23.60% return and ISMD slightly lower at 23.54%.

SCDS

• 1D: 1.17%
• 1M: 6.33%
• YTD: 23.60%
• 6M: 24.35%
• 1Y: 46.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ISMD

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: 5.75%
• YTD: 23.54%
• 6M: 24.96%
• 1Y: 41.80%
• 3Y*: 16.75%
• 5Y*: 8.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

SCDS vs. ISMD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF	23.60%	11.27%	7.26%
ISMD Inspire Small/Mid Cap Impact ETF	23.54%	4.14%	5.82%

Correlation

The correlation between SCDS and ISMD is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2024	0.93

The correlation between SCDS and ISMD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

SCDS vs. ISMD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SCDS	ISMD
Technology	20.8%	17.3%
Financial Services	14.7%	15.2%
Industrials	14.6%	17.7%
Healthcare	11.0%	9.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	11.2%
Real Estate	4.9%	8.9%
Energy	3.9%	3.3%
Basic Materials	3.2%	5.2%
Utilities	2.4%	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	6.1%
Communication Services	1.6%	2.5%

Return for Risk

SCDS vs. ISMD — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCDS

SCDS Risk / Return Rank: 79
SCDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
SCDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
SCDS Omega Ratio Rank: 69
SCDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
SCDS Martin Ratio Rank: 85

ISMD

ISMD Risk / Return Rank: 70
ISMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
ISMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
ISMD Omega Ratio Rank: 62
ISMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ISMD Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

SCDS vs. ISMD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS) and Inspire Small/Mid Cap Impact ETF (ISMD). 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.

	SCDS	ISMD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	2.27	+0.28
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	3.16	+0.40
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.38	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.25	4.25	+1.01
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.30	13.33	+4.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SCDS vs. ISMD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCDS Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the ISMD Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCDS and ISMD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	SCDS	ISMD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	2.27	+0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	0.41	+0.73

Drawdowns

SCDS vs. ISMD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCDS drawdown since its inception was -26.71%, smaller than the maximum ISMD drawdown of -44.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCDS and ISMD.

Drawdown Indicators

	SCDS	ISMD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.71%	-44.60%	+17.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.85%	-9.64%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.64%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.29%	-8.18%	+2.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.54%	3.07%	-0.53%

Volatility

SCDS vs. ISMD - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS) has a higher volatility of 5.53% compared to Inspire Small/Mid Cap Impact ETF (ISMD) at 4.81%. This indicates that SCDS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISMD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SCDS	ISMD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.53%	4.81%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.97%	12.40%	+0.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.18%	18.49%	-0.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.22%	20.85%	+0.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.22%	23.73%	-2.51%

SCDS vs. ISMD - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCDS has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than ISMD's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

SCDS vs. ISMD - Dividend Comparison

SCDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than ISMD's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ISMD Inspire Small/Mid Cap Impact ETF	0.93%	1.21%	1.24%	1.17%	1.28%	9.35%	0.99%	0.88%	1.35%	2.02%
SCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF	0.91%	1.15%	0.42%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SCDS and ISMD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, SCDS and ISMD 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.

Which is riskier, SCDS or ISMD?

SCDS has higher volatility (5.53%) compared to ISMD (4.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCDS dropped -26.71% vs ISMD's -44.60%.

Which ETF is better, SCDS or ISMD?

On 1-year performance, SCDS leads with 46.17% vs 41.80% for ISMD. On fees, SCDS is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISMD has been the lower-risk option at 4.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SCDS or ISMD?

Over the 1-year period, SCDS has performed better with a 46.17% return vs 41.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SCDS or ISMD?

SCDS is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for ISMD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SCDS or ISMD?

ISMD has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.91% for SCDS.

What is the main difference between SCDS and ISMD?

They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for SCDS and 0.57% for ISMD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.27), 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.