UMMA vs. RODM

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) and RODM (Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. UMMA is actively managed, while RODM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMMA returned 22.56%/yr vs 19.34%/yr for RODM. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UMMA charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for RODM.

Performance

UMMA vs. RODM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMMA achieves a 36.42% return, which is significantly higher than RODM's 10.99% return.

UMMA

• 1D: 3.30%
• 1M: 9.54%
• YTD: 36.42%
• 6M: 39.45%
• 1Y: 59.48%
• 3Y*: 22.56%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RODM

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -1.20%
• YTD: 10.99%
• 6M: 11.30%
• 1Y: 25.78%
• 3Y*: 19.34%
• 5Y*: 10.16%
• 10Y*: 9.00%

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

UMMA vs. RODM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	36.42%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	10.99%	34.42%	8.02%	15.76%	-14.22%

Correlation

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

UMMA vs. RODM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

UMMA vs. RODM — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 82
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

RODM

RODM Risk / Return Rank: 76
RODM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
RODM Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
RODM Omega Ratio Rank: 75
RODM Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
RODM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. RODM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). 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	RODM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	2.29	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	3.23	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.42	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.92	3.54	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.03	14.05	+0.98

UMMA vs. RODM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is comparable to the RODM Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMMA and RODM, 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. RODM - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	UMMA	RODM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.17%	-35.98%	+1.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.93%	-7.10%	-7.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.73%	-10.58%	-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	0.00%	-1.42%	+1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.74%	-6.36%	-3.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.88%	1.78%	+2.10%

Volatility

UMMA vs. RODM - Volatility Comparison

Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a higher volatility of 10.85% compared to Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) at 3.36%. This indicates that UMMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RODM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMMA	RODM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.85%	3.36%	+7.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.64%	8.78%	+10.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.14%	10.94%	+11.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.96%	13.45%	+7.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.96%	15.21%	+5.75%

UMMA vs. RODM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

UMMA vs. RODM - Dividend Comparison

UMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than RODM's 2.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	2.80%	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	0.90%	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 UMMA and RODM in my portfolio?

UMMA and RODM 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, UMMA or RODM?

UMMA has higher volatility (10.85%) compared to RODM (3.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMMA dropped -34.17% vs RODM's -35.98%.

Which ETF is better, UMMA or RODM?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 22.56% vs 19.34% for RODM. On fees, RODM is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, RODM has been the lower-risk option at 3.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMMA or RODM?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 22.56% return vs 19.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMMA or RODM?

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

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

RODM has the higher dividend yield at 2.80%, compared with 0.90% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between UMMA and RODM?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.29), 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.