Comparative Historical Analysis of Shariah-Screened and Conventional U.S. Equity ETFs (2020–2025)
SPUS vs HLAL vs VOO vs SPY: fees, factor exposures, and regime sensitivity (descriptive; non-prescriptive)
⚠️ IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE — Click to expand
This document is general educational research and comparative historical analysis. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, portfolio management, a solicitation, or any inducement to transact in any financial instrument.
No personalization. The analysis does not take into account any individual’s financial situation, objectives, or risk profile.
Data and scope. Figures are compiled from the sources listed at the end of this document and are current as of December 2025 unless stated otherwise. Historical results are presented for descriptive purposes and do not imply future outcomes.
Regulatory positioning. This text is intended to qualify as non-advisory research / educational analysis under Swiss regulatory expectations (FinSA / FINMA), with a focus on methodology, historical evidence, and limitations.
For complete disclaimers, see Legal Disclaimers.
Key Observations (Non-Prescriptive; sample period 2020–2025)
- →Relative return dispersion was observed between the Shariah-screened ETFs in this sample (SPUS, HLAL) and conventional benchmarks (VOO, SPY); the dispersion coincided with differences in sector composition and leverage constraints.
- →Expense ratios differed materially in the observed products (approximately 0.49–0.50% for SPUS/HLAL versus 0.03% for VOO and 0.0945% for SPY as of December 2025).
- →A large share of the observed return differences can be described using factor and sector exposures (e.g., technology weight, financials exclusion, and low-leverage bias) rather than product-specific “skill”.
- →Regime sensitivity is central: the same exposures that coincided with relative outperformance in some environments are mechanically associated with different relative outcomes in other environments (illustrated qualitatively below).
Preview ends here.
Read the full report
This report is currently invite-only while we scale coverage and audit trails. Unlock to view the complete methodology and tables.
Key Observations (Non-Prescriptive)
- 1Sample-period dispersion — Relative returns differed across SPUS, HLAL, VOO, and SPY in 2020–2025.
- 2Fees and frictions — Expense ratios and implementation frictions (liquidity, bid-ask spreads, tracking) can contribute to differences in net outcomes.
- 3Expense ratio gap — The referenced Shariah-screened ETFs list higher expense ratios than the referenced conventional S&P 500 ETFs (as of December 2025).
- 4Regime sensitivity — Sector/factor exposures imply different sensitivity to technology leadership and financial-sector shocks.