Always these pointless comparisons, there will always be some comparison in which his own preferred candidate or surprisingly the other (to push the "newcomer") performs better. Example: I compare the godlike super-duper-MCSI-World-ETF with the bäh-pfui-gruesomely-overpriced-Deka-GlobalChampions-Fonds.
Performance:
1 year: World: 22.10%, Deka: 25.21%
5 years: World: 87.6%, Deka: 90.69%
10 years: World: 208.26%, Deka: 212.33%
Vola 10 years: World: 13.78%, Deka: 13.43%
Sharpe 10 years: World: +0.85, Deka: +0.87
max Drawdown (5Y) : World -33%, Deka: -27.02%

According to all selected comparisons, the Deka is slightly more perfomant with less vola, less drawdown and better Sharpe. Interestingly, however, everyone adores the World ETF and a thousand pseudo-evidences from the world of statistics are unpacked again, because a real fund, even from a savings bank, must be worse. ETFs and funds are like shares: check, if convinced buy, leave. The constant comparison with possibly even better values and trading back and forth usually only costs time without added value.
5
profile image
@financial_genius_20 okay, then just buy any fund 👍
1
profile image
@financial_genius_20

...I didn't get the impression that the author of the post @DonkeyInvestor wanted to promote a preferred candidate 🤷‍♂️
1
profile image
@Stullen-Portfolio right. I'm actually Team All World 😅
1
profile image
Deka Fond just under 4% front-end load and 1.44% TER unfortunately hurt the return extremely.
2