-
The iShares fund range reviewed contained 208 funds, with only 12 receiving a 5 star Yodelar rating and 59 receiving 1 star.
-
The strongest highlighted fund was iShares MSCI Korea UCITS ETF, which returned 240.99% over 1 year and 145.44% over 5 years, ranking 2nd and 19th in the IA Specialist sector.
-
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF delivered the strongest 5 year return among the highlighted funds, returning 174.70% and ranking 6th out of 196 funds in the IA Specialist sector.
- Some iShares funds performed well ahead of their sector averages, while others lagged significantly despite carrying well-known themes such as water, robotics, Japan and US financials.
iShares is one of the most recognised fund ranges available to UK investors. For many self managed investors, the appeal is clear. The funds are easy to access, often low cost, and cover a wide range of markets, sectors and themes.
That convenience can be useful. It can also create a false sense of security.
A fund carrying the iShares name may track a market, a sector, a theme or a specialist index, but that does not mean all iShares funds deliver similar results. Some have ranked near the top of their sectors. Others have fallen well behind their peer groups.
That is the central finding from this review. The iShares range includes some excellent performers, but also a large number of funds that have delivered weaker sector rankings. For investors, the lesson is simple. Brand recognition and low cost can help, but they should not replace proper fund analysis, diversification checks and portfolio review.
iShares Fund Performance Summary
The iShares performance summary highlights how varied results have been across the range.
Of the 208 iShares funds analysed, 12 achieved a 5 star Yodelar rating. A further 25 received 4 stars, while 41 were rated 3 stars. At the weaker end, 71 funds received 2 stars and 59 were rated 1 star.
That means only 37 of the 208 funds, or around 18%, achieved a 4 or 5 star rating. By contrast, 130 funds, or around 63%, were rated 1 or 2 stars.
How Yodelar Rate Fund Performance
This does not mean iShares funds are poor overall. It means the range is broad, and performance has varied significantly depending on the fund, sector, region and theme. Some funds have benefited from strong market conditions in areas such as Taiwan, Korea, global value and US momentum. Others have lagged in areas such as water, Japan SRI, robotics and broader emerging market exposure.
For investors, that distinction matters. It is not enough to choose a provider. The specific fund, its sector, its index exposure and its role within the wider portfolio all need to be considered.
5 of The Top Performing iShares Funds
The five funds below were highlighted in the dataset as among the strongest iShares performers. They are not recommendations, but they provide useful examples of how some iShares funds have ranked strongly against their sector peers.
iShares MSCI Korea UCITS ETF
iShares MSCI Korea UCITS ETF was one of the most striking performers in the review. It returned 240.99% over 1 year, ranking 2nd out of 234 funds in the IA Specialist sector. Over 3 years, it returned 206.51%, ranking 6th out of 216 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 145.44%, ranking 19th out of 196 funds.
Those figures were far ahead of the IA Specialist sector averages of 31.13% over 1 year, 53.19% over 3 years and 52.76% over 5 years.
The fund’s performance shows how powerful country-specific exposure can be when conditions are favourable. However, it also highlights why investors need to understand what they own. A country-specific ETF is not the same as a broad global equity fund. It can add a useful source of return, but it can also increase exposure to one market and one set of economic conditions.
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF also delivered very strong results, particularly over the longer term. It returned 109.37% over 1 year, ranking 12th out of 234 funds in the IA Specialist sector. Over 3 years, it returned 167.80%, ranking 18th out of 216 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 174.70%, ranking 6th out of 196 funds.
The 5 year return was more than three times the sector average of 52.76%.
This fund is another example of how specialist regional exposure can produce standout results. Taiwan has been closely linked to the strength of technology and semiconductor-related markets, and this has been reflected in the fund’s sector ranking. But investors should still be careful not to treat it as a general global holding. It is a specialist fund with a concentrated regional focus.
iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF
iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF stood out in the IA Global sector. It returned 65.94% over 1 year, ranking 17th out of 543 funds. Over 3 years, it returned 103.04%, ranking 10th out of 478 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 123.93%, ranking 13th out of 414 funds.
Those returns were significantly ahead of the IA Global sector averages of 23.58%, 48.38% and 54.00% over the same periods.
This is one of the clearest examples in the review of a broad iShares strategy ranking strongly over multiple timeframes. Unlike the Korea or Taiwan funds, this is not a single-country exposure. It focuses on global companies that meet value-style characteristics. Its strong sector rankings show that the value factor has been highly competitive over the periods analysed.
For investors, the key point is not simply that the fund performed well. It is that it delivered strong results while operating in a very competitive IA Global sector.
iShares Edge MSCI USA Momentum Factor UCITS ETF
iShares Edge MSCI USA Momentum Factor UCITS ETF performed strongly within the IA North America sector. It returned 38.86% over 1 year, ranking 19th out of 257 funds. Over 3 years, it returned 110.08%, ranking 6th out of 229 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 99.97%, ranking 37th out of 208 funds.
The fund was ahead of the IA North America sector averages across all three main periods. The strongest relative result was over 3 years, where it returned 110.08% compared with a sector average of 58.88%.
This fund tracks US companies with strong recent price trends. In simple terms, it leans towards areas of the market that have already been performing well. That can work strongly during supportive periods, but it can also change quickly if market leadership shifts.
Its performance has been impressive, but it is still important to understand the style exposure. It is not just a US equity fund. It is a US momentum fund.
iShares UK Equity Index D Acc
iShares UK Equity Index D Acc was the only highlighted top performer in this review to achieve a 5 star Yodelar rating. It returned 22.68% over 1 year, ranking 30th out of 199 funds in the IA UK All Companies sector. Over 3 years, it returned 52.15%, ranking 24th out of 190 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 67.98%, ranking 27th out of 183 funds.
Those returns were comfortably ahead of the sector averages of 13.96% over 1 year, 36.54% over 3 years and 36.18% over 5 years.
This fund is a good example of a simple, low-cost UK equity index fund delivering competitive sector rankings. Its ongoing charge was just 0.05%, which is notably low. Cost alone does not determine quality, but when a low-cost fund has also ranked ahead of the sector average over 1, 3 and 5 years, it deserves attention within a performance review.
5 of The Worst Performing iShares Funds
The five funds below were highlighted in the dataset as weaker performers. This does not mean they are unsuitable for every investor, but their performance and sector rankings show that they have lagged their peer groups over the periods analysed.
iShares Global Water UCITS ETF
iShares Global Water UCITS ETF struggled against the IA Commodity and Natural Resources sector. It returned 4.58% over 1 year, ranking 31st out of 33 funds. Over 3 years, it returned 22.00%, ranking 21st out of 27 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 31.26%, ranking 20th out of 25 funds.
Those figures were well below the sector averages of 56.31% over 1 year, 50.79% over 3 years and 86.93% over 5 years.
The fund’s theme may sound attractive. Water infrastructure and water-related businesses are easy to understand as long-term ideas. But this is a useful example of why a strong story does not always lead to strong sector performance. The fund has remained in the lower quartile across the main periods analysed.
iShares MSCI Japan SRI UCITS ETF
iShares MSCI Japan SRI UCITS ETF also lagged its sector. It returned 12.12% over 1 year, ranking 93rd out of 96 funds in the IA Japan sector. Over 3 years, it returned 22.63%, ranking 85th out of 90 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 24.31%, ranking 74th out of 84 funds.
The sector averages over those periods were 31.60%, 55.55% and 58.00%.
The fund’s results show that even in a market where some Japanese funds have performed strongly, not every index or screened strategy has kept pace. The SRI approach may appeal to investors with certain preferences, but from a performance and sector ranking perspective, this fund has been among the weaker names in its peer group over the periods analysed.
iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF
iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF ranked poorly within the IA North America sector. It returned 3.32% over 1 year, ranking 244th out of 257 funds. Over 3 years, it returned 53.24%, ranking 146th out of 229 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 53.59%, ranking 162nd out of 208 funds.
Those returns were below the IA North America sector averages of 24.06%, 58.88% and 75.02%.
This fund provides targeted exposure to US financial companies. That narrower exposure helps explain why it can behave very differently from broad North America funds. Its 3 year return was positive, but it still lagged the sector average. Over 1 and 5 years, the gap was more pronounced.
For investors, this is a reminder that sector ETFs can add concentration risk. They should usually be judged by the specific role they play, not simply by the market they belong to.
iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF
iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF was one of the weakest highlighted funds in the review. It returned minus 1.80% over 1 year, ranking 225th out of 234 funds in the IA Specialist sector. Over 3 years, it returned 21.03%, ranking 160th out of 216 funds. Over 5 years, it fell 28.33%, ranking 193rd out of 196 funds.
This was a large gap compared with the IA Specialist sector averages of 31.13%, 53.19% and 52.76%.
The fund’s results show how challenging broad specialist or emerging market-linked exposure can be when the underlying markets do not keep pace. A fund can have a compelling geographic or thematic angle, but if the underlying index performs poorly, investors can be left far behind the wider peer group.
iShares Automation and Robotics UCITS ETF
iShares Automation and Robotics UCITS ETF is a good example of a fund with an appealing theme but weaker relative performance. It returned 46.84% over 1 year, ranking 27th out of 39 funds in the IA Technology and Technology Innovation sector. Over 3 years, it returned 68.22%, ranking 28th out of 33 funds. Over 5 years, it returned 76.09%, ranking 24th out of 31 funds.
At first glance, those returns may look reasonable. But the sector averages were 55.84% over 1 year, 114.98% over 3 years and 117.84% over 5 years.
That is the key point. A fund can make money and still underperform badly compared with its sector. Robotics and automation remain areas of investor interest, but this fund’s rankings show that the theme has not translated into competitive sector performance over the periods analysed.
What The iShares Review Shows
The iShares range gives investors access to a very wide range of markets, sectors and themes. That breadth is one of its strengths, but it also makes fund selection more important.
The strongest highlighted funds were not all broad market trackers. Some were very specialist, including Korea, Taiwan and US momentum. Others, such as iShares UK Equity Index and iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor, delivered strong results from simpler and broader exposures.
The weaker highlighted funds also tell an important story. Some were linked to themes that may sound attractive, such as water or robotics. Others had regional or sector focuses that did not keep pace with their peer groups.
That makes this review useful for self managed investors. It shows that even within a well-known provider range, outcomes can differ widely.
Why Provider Choice Is Not Enough
Many investors begin by choosing a platform, then a provider, then a fund. That can make sense, especially when looking for low-cost index exposure. But this review shows why provider choice alone is not enough.
A strong provider can still have funds that lag. A low-cost fund can still be the wrong fit. A fund that has delivered strong returns can still add too much exposure to one region, sector or investment style.
The more useful question is not simply whether iShares is a good fund provider. It is whether the specific fund being held is doing the job it is meant to do within the portfolio.
When A Portfolio Review Becomes Useful
A performance table can show how a fund has ranked. It cannot show whether that fund is right for the investor’s portfolio.
This is where many self managed investors can run into difficulty. A portfolio may hold several good funds, but still be overly concentrated. It may hold a global tracker, a US equity fund, a technology ETF and a specialist country fund, all of which may be more connected than the investor realises.
A portfolio analysis can help identify those issues. It can show how each holding has performed, how it ranks within its sector, and whether the wider portfolio has potential gaps, overlaps or concentration risks.
For investors who want to go further, speaking with an adviser can help turn that analysis into a clearer plan. This does not mean every portfolio needs major changes. In some cases, the analysis may confirm that the existing structure is broadly suitable. In others, it may highlight areas that need closer review.
Where Professional Portfolio Management Can Help
Managing a portfolio well is not only about picking funds. It is also about understanding how they interact, how much risk they add, and whether the overall structure remains aligned with the investor’s objectives.
This is where professionally managed portfolios, such as those from MKC Invest, may be useful for some investors. MKC Invest portfolios are managed within a defined risk framework and use research, fund analysis and ongoing oversight to help maintain the structure of each portfolio over time.
Because MKC Invest operates with discretionary permissions, portfolio changes can be made within an agreed mandate without requiring approval for each individual adjustment. This can help portfolios remain reviewed and aligned as markets, fund quality and opportunities change.
This does not guarantee better returns and it will not be suitable for everyone. But for investors who do not want to manage every fund decision themselves, it can provide a more structured way to keep a portfolio reviewed, diversified and aligned to its long-term purpose.
Conclusion
The iShares range includes some very strong funds, but also a large number of funds that have struggled to keep pace with their sectors. Of the 208 funds analysed, only 12 achieved a 5 star Yodelar rating, while 59 were rated 1 star.
That is the main lesson from this review. The iShares name may offer scale, access and low-cost options, but it does not remove the need for fund selection and portfolio oversight.
The highlighted stronger funds show how powerful the right exposure can be. Korea, Taiwan, global value, US momentum and UK equity exposure all ranked strongly over the periods analysed. The weaker highlighted funds show the other side of the same point. Themes such as water, robotics or specialist regional exposure can still lag badly if the underlying market or index does not keep pace.
For investors already holding iShares funds, the next step is not simply to ask whether the provider is good or bad. It is to understand what each fund owns, how it has ranked, how it fits with the rest of the portfolio, and whether the overall structure still supports the investor’s objectives.
That is often where the most useful insight sits. Not in the brand name, but in how the whole portfolio works together.
