UMMA vs. EFAS

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMMA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Wahed, while EFAS is a Dividend fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. UMMA is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMMA returned 18.25%/yr vs 23.84%/yr for EFAS. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UMMA charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

UMMA vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMMA achieves a 22.43% return, which is significantly higher than EFAS's 16.36% return.

UMMA

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: -6.75%
• 6M: 14.97%
• YTD: 22.43%
• 1Y: 37.53%
• 3Y*: 18.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFAS

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 0.83%
• 6M: 15.00%
• YTD: 16.36%
• 1Y: 28.83%
• 3Y*: 23.84%
• 5Y*: 13.62%
• 10Y*: —

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

UMMA vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	22.43%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	16.36%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	-8.47%

Correlation

The correlation between UMMA and EFAS is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.56

The correlation between UMMA and EFAS shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (1 year) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UMMA vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMMA	EFAS
Technology	48.2%	0.1%
Healthcare	14.8%	0.1%
Industrials	12.1%	10.4%
Basic Materials	8.8%	1.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	8.1%
Energy	2.4%	13.1%
Communication Services	1.0%	8.6%
Real Estate	0.4%	11.4%
Financial Services	0.0%	31.0%
Utilities	-	13.7%

Return for Risk

UMMA vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 59
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 57
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 91
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

UMMA vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	UMMA	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	2.66	-1.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	3.74	-1.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.47	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.53	5.46	-2.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.94	13.35	-4.41

UMMA vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is lower than the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMMA and EFAS, 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

UMMA vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMMA drawdown since its inception was -34.17%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMMA and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMMA	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.17%	-44.38%	+10.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.93%	-5.30%	-9.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.73%	-11.84%	-6.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.26%	-0.14%	-10.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.68%	-7.02%	-2.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.21%	2.16%	+2.05%

Volatility

UMMA vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a higher volatility of 9.91% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 2.78%. This indicates that UMMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMMA	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.91%	2.78%	+7.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.42%	8.72%	+12.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.81%	10.91%	+12.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.23%	15.57%	+5.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.23%	18.26%	+2.97%

UMMA vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMMA has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than EFAS's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMMA vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

UMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, less than EFAS's 4.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.69%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.99%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMMA and EFAS in my portfolio?

UMMA and EFAS have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMMA or EFAS?

UMMA has higher volatility (9.91%) compared to EFAS (2.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMMA dropped -34.17% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, UMMA or EFAS?

On 3-year performance, EFAS leads with 23.84% vs 18.25% for UMMA. On fees, EFAS is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 2.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMMA or EFAS?

Over the 3-year period, EFAS has performed better with a 23.84% return vs 18.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMMA or EFAS?

EFAS is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.69%, compared with 0.99% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between UMMA and EFAS?

UMMA is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while EFAS is Dividend. They also come from different issuers: Wahed and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for UMMA and 0.55% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 1.58), 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.