Fund comparison
Every Shariah-branded ETF, screened against all five standards
The 7 funds in our universe marketed as Shariah-compliant, each shown against our fund screen and the four index rulebooks — including the 4 the standards do not agree on.
1The finding
7 funds in our universe are marketed as Shariah-compliant products. We screen them exactly as we screen everything else and publish all five verdicts rather than ours alone. 4 of the 7 are called permissible by at least one recognised standard and impermissible by another.
These standards are expected to disagree, and none of them is wrong. Each fund here is built to a named standard with its own scholars. Our column is a portfolio-weight test derived from AAOIFI, applied to the basket as it stands today — a different question from the one the fund's own index asks at selection time. We publish both because the reader, not us, decides which standard they follow.
2Every branded fund, every verdict
Ordered by how many standards rule the fund out. “Basket visible” is the share of the fund's weight we can screen, shown because a verdict without it is not a complete statement about a fund.
| Fund | Akinda fund screen | Dow Jones Islamic Market | FTSE Shariah | MSCI Islamic | S&P Shariah | Basket visible |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISDW.LLondon Stock Exchange | Not halal | Not halal | Not rated | Not rated | Not halal | 78.17% |
| ISWD.LLondon Stock Exchange | Not halal | Not halal | Not rated | Not rated | Not halal | 78.17% |
| HLALUS exchanges | Doubtful | Halal | Not halal | Not halal | Halal | 99.15% |
| SPREUS exchanges | Not rated | Not rated | Not halal | Not halal | Not rated | 65.89% |
| SPUSUS exchanges | Doubtful | Halal | Not halal | Not halal | Halal | 99.61% |
| ISDU.LLondon Stock Exchange | Not halal | Halal | Halal | Halal | Halal | 99.71% |
| ISUS.LLondon Stock Exchange | Not halal | Halal | Halal | Halal | Halal | 99.71% |
3How to read a row that contradicts itself
A fund reading doubtful on our screen and permissible under an index standard is not an error on either side. The two are asking different questions.
- Our screen tests the basket as it is now. Every constituent is screened today, the impermissible weight is added up, and that total is tested against a limit.
- An index standard tests each company at selection. Against that standard's own thresholds and its own denominator, at the moment of the last reconstitution.
- A basket that has drifted can fail the first and pass the second. Nothing has gone wrong; the two tests were taken at different moments under different rules.
4What this means in practice
“Is this fund halal” has no answer without naming a standard. 4 of the 7 branded funds are cleared by at least one of the five, and a fund's own marketing names only the standard it was built to.
That is why every fund page on this site publishes five columns instead of one, and why the coverage figure sits beside them. A product that shows a single verdict has picked a standard on the reader's behalf without telling them.
Key observations
- 1A Shariah label names one standard, not all of them. 4 of 7 branded funds are ruled out by at least one recognised standard.
- 2Disagreement is not an error. Our screen tests today's basket by weight; an index standard tested each company at selection. Different question, different moment.
- 3Doubtful is its own answer. It is neither a clearance nor a refusal, and folding it into either is the commonest way these verdicts get misread.
- 4Coverage belongs beside the verdict. A verdict without the share of the basket behind it is an incomplete statement about a fund.
Data sources and method
- Verdicts:
- Akinda's own screening engine, applied per constituent under each of the five standards and rolled up by portfolio weight.
- Fund selection:
- Every fund in our published set whose NAME identifies it as a Shariah or Islamic product, matched on the name rather than from a hand-written ticker list.
- Coverage:
- The share of each fund's weight we can match to a screened company, as published on that fund's own page.
How the figures were produced
- A contradiction requires one standard reading HALAL and another reading NOT HALAL on the same fund. DOUBTFUL counts as neither.
- Funds are ordered by how many standards rule them out, then by ticker, so the ordering is reproducible rather than editorial.
- A null verdict is never treated as a verdict; it renders as not rated.
Limitations
- This is a snapshot. A constituent re-screened tonight can move a fund's verdict with no change to its holdings.
- It covers branded funds in our published set, which is not every Shariah-branded product in the world.
- We deliberately publish no AUM, expense ratio or holding-level weight here. Those belong to the commercial API, and their absence is a choice rather than a gap.
- No return, performance or risk figure appears anywhere in this report. We screen for compliance and do not measure investment outcomes.
Measured 2026-10-21. This is screening data presented for information. It is not investment advice, it is not a religious ruling, and the standards named in it are the work of their own scholars and boards.
Common questions
Is a fund marketed as Shariah-compliant automatically permissible?
It depends on which standard you apply, and the funds on this page are the evidence. Each is built to a named standard with its own board, and our screen applies a different one — a portfolio-weight test derived from AAOIFI. A fund can satisfy the standard it was built to and not satisfy ours, and both results are correct about the question each asks.
Why does your verdict differ from the fund's own standard?
Because our fund screen is a weighted roll-up: we screen every constituent, add up the impermissible weight and test that total against a limit. An index provider screens the constituents at selection time against their own thresholds and denominators. Different test, different moment, and sometimes a different answer about the same basket.
Does a doubtful verdict mean the fund is impermissible?
No. Doubtful means the impermissible weight we can see sits in a band where the answer is not clear-cut — it is neither a clearance nor a refusal. Treating it as a quieter version of either is the most common way these verdicts get misread, which is why it is shown as its own value and never folded into the other two.
How often do these verdicts change?
A fund's verdict can move without its holdings changing at all, because the constituents are re-screened continuously and the share of the basket we can see drifts as providers republish it. That is why every figure on this page carries a measurement date and every fund page shows its own last-changed date rather than today's.
Do you screen funds that are not marketed as Shariah products?
Yes — the great majority of what we screen is ordinary broad-market and sector funds, which is where the question usually starts. A fund does not have to call itself anything in particular to be screened; it just needs holdings we can see.
Keep reading
Why one rulebook clears a fund another rules out, measured across every fund we publish.
Basket coverage decides what a fund verdict is worth, and it drifts without anyone trading.
Which companies changed verdict, and whether it was the company that moved or the standard's own limit.
Screen every fund yourself
Every verdict on this page comes out of the Akinda API — all five standards, for stocks and funds, with coverage beside each result.