Active or passive: methodology and identified examples
Research checked 20 October 2026. This study distinguishes the ETF wrapper, index tracking, manager discretion and systematic strategies. Anonymous examples are used in the article. Selection is purposive, not a representative sample, investment shortlist or performance ranking. This research does not change Rogha’s ETF directory or holdings data.
Definitions
ESMA UCITS Q&A 1100 defines active management through discretion over portfolio composition within the stated objectives and policy. This is the basis for distinguishing management approaches. The two-dimensional diagram is Rogha’s explanatory framing, not a regulatory classification scale.
| Code and identity | Classification and source |
|---|---|
| A · iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF IE00B4L5Y983 | Index-tracking; MSCI World; optimised implementation. Official KIID supports the mandate. Official source |
| B · iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF IE00BP3QZ601 | Index-tracking; MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index. Product page and MSCI quality description support the style distinction. Official source |
| C · JPM Global Research Enhanced Index Equity Active UCITS ETF USD (acc) IE00BF4G6Y48 | Active, research-enhanced; MSCI World reference. Issuer REI page explains benchmark proximity and active-risk constraints. Official source |
| D · Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF IE00BM8R0J59 | Issuer explicitly identifies synthetic, passively managed, index tracking; Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite v2 UCITS Index. Official source |
Additional sources: MSCI quality-index explanation; JPMorgan official factsheet. The latter is a Singapore-labelled document for the same ISIN, used to corroborate identity and strategy rather than Irish retail distribution eligibility. Live links can change; retrieval date is 20 October. This is a mandate explainer, not a full legal-document audit. The cited iShares KIID describes the index objective; comprehensive current prospectus, holdings and annual-report verification is required before extending this into a quantitative comparison.
Disclosure and measurement boundaries
Management classification and benchmark role were checked from the sources above. Comparable holdings-publication frequency, aligned concentration measures and annual turnover have not been established for all four products. They are therefore not ranked or assigned numerical scores. No inference of daily full holdings transparency is made merely from ETF status. Source pages may display reference-index constituents, fund holdings or a swap basket; these are different disclosures.
The article explains those checks in plain language rather than implying that the dataset already contains them. A follow-up holdings study needs dated complete files, consistent company consolidation and derivatives treatment. Active share would require matched portfolio and benchmark weights; it is not calculated here. Realised tracking error and turnover likewise cannot be inferred from a single holdings snapshot.
No fund fee comparison, return series, flow history, concentration calculation or active/passive success-rate analysis was performed. Active-market growth, net performance, fair-comparator analysis, combinations and overlap are outside the scope of this article. No broker availability claim is made. Product existence was verified externally, not asserted from the frozen Rogha directory.
Hypothetical statements about systematic active strategies or an active covered-call mandate describe possible mandates, not unverified classifications of additional named funds. The option strategy discussion does not treat the synthetic basket as physical ownership of the reference index. This research is educational and does not prescribe an allocation.