How Genocide Filters Impact a Filtered Fund’s Performance

Last updated: September 1, 2026

TL;DR: We backtested three popular funds over 7 years with and without genocide filters. The BDS list barely moved the S&P 500 (+0.7%), took a little off a conservative dividend fund (−4.2%), and, mostly thanks to a lucky reshuffle into chip stocks, actually came out ahead on a growth fund (+18.9%). The much broader Watermelon Index was a different story: −26.3% on the growth fund and −15.2% on the S&P 500, because it drops most of the biggest U.S. tech names.

If you've ever looked at your portfolio and wondered what it would cost you to drop the companies profiting from genocide and occupation, you're not alone. It's one of the most common questions we get.

So we tested it. We took three well-known U.S. funds, replayed their actual holdings from December 2019 to August 2026, and compared how they did with and without two popular exclusion lists. We threw in the S&P 500 ETF (SPY) as a benchmark so you can see how the market as a whole would have fared.

The Funds We Tested

We picked three funds that represent very different ways of investing:

• FDGRX: Fidelity Growth Company Fund, a growth fund
• VDADX: Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund, a conservative dividend fund
• SPY: the S&P 500 ETF, our market benchmark

The Filters We Tested

BDS Filter

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality, built on the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity.

Our list comes straight from the BDS Movement's official page. It's the same list you can switch on inside Amal, and for this test it covered 47 publicly listed companies as of September 1, 2026.

Watermelon Index

The Watermelon Index is a tool for worker-led resistance against the occupation and genocide in Palestine. It's a database of companies complicit in Israeli crimes, along with the worker campaigns against them.

It casts a much wider net than the BDS list. For this test it covered 110 listed companies, including Apple and NVIDIA on top of the tech names that are already on the BDS list.

Performance Results

A couple of things to know before you read the table.

Why start in late 2019? We replay each fund's real historical holdings, and our data only goes back to 2019, when the SEC started requiring funds to disclose them. So every fund gets the same window, December 2019 to August 2026.

What are we comparing against? Amal always applies its halal screen, so our starting point is the fund with non-compliant holdings already removed and no genocide filter. That's the "halal screen only" row. The other rows add each list on top of it. Everything is rebuilt the same way, so the differences you see come purely from the filters.

Here's how $10,000 would have grown under each setup:

The Data

Each chart shows the halal-screened fund alongside the same fund with each list applied.

FDGRX - Growth Fund

VDADX - Save Fund

SPY - S&P 500

What We Learned

1. The BDS filter is cheaper than you'd think

The big fear with ethical investing is that you're paying for your principles. Over these 7 years, the BDS filter didn't really ask you to. SPY finished +0.7% versus the halal-screened version, VDADX gave up −4.2%, and FDGRX finished +18.9%.

That FDGRX number deserves a caveat, so here it is. The BDS list now includes Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon. When the test removes them, that money gets spread across whatever the fund still holds, and in FDGRX's case that means a lot of NVIDIA and other chip makers, which happened to have an extraordinary few years. So a chunk of that gain is really "you accidentally bought more NVIDIA in 2020." Please don't read it as proof that boycotting boosts returns. The fairer takeaway is that the BDS filter didn't hurt.

2. Broad filters come with a bill

The Watermelon filter goes a lot further and also drops Apple, NVIDIA and dozens of other large U.S. companies. That's where the cost shows up:

• FDGRX finished −26.3% versus the halal-screened fund
• SPY finished −15.2% below its halal-screened version
• VDADX, the conservative one, moved by just −0.9%

3. Your investing style matters

VDADX shrugged off both lists because it simply doesn't hold much of what they exclude. The one thing that registered was the BDS list (−4.2%), since Microsoft is one of its largest holdings. Growth funds, on the other hand, feel every exclusion more sharply, in both directions.

Why Tech Decides Everything

The gap between the two lists points to one thing: a handful of high-growth U.S. tech companies have been carrying the market for the past few years. Whether a list includes them or not largely decides what it costs you.

That's an uncomfortable spot for values-based investors, because some of the market's best performers are exactly the companies many people want nothing to do with.

But it isn't a life sentence. Market leadership rotates. What drove returns over these years won't necessarily drive them over the next ones, and the cost of a filter can just as easily shrink as grow.

Legal Compliance: Navigating Anti-BDS Legislation

A question we hear a lot: How does Amal Invest deal with U.S. anti-BDS legislation?

Our Position

Amal Invest is not affected by anti-BDS laws, for two simple reasons:

1. We don't manage pooled funds or take investment positions
2. We provide screening tools, not investment management

How It Works

• You keep full control of your holdings
• We don't facilitate divestment; we provide screening transparency
• You apply our filters to your own, self-managed portfolio

That structure keeps everything above board while giving you the information you need to make your own decisions.

The Bigger Picture: Values and Visibility

We don't think you should have to choose between your values and visibility into what they cost.

Most approaches to ethical or halal investing hand you a static exclusion list and leave you guessing about the impact. We'd rather show you:

• Real historical performance with and without each filter
• A clear view of the trade-offs between different approaches
• Filters you can tune to your own values

What This Means for You

Whether you manage your own portfolio or work with an adviser, a few things are worth keeping in mind:

1. Not all filters cost the same. A targeted list can be nearly free; a broad one usually isn't.
2. Your style matters. Conservative, dividend-focused strategies tend to be more resilient to exclusions.
3. Know the number. Seeing the actual impact makes it much easier to decide what you're comfortable with.
4. You can do this legally. With the right structure, values-based screening doesn't run into regulatory trouble.

Backtest last run on September 1, 2026. Past performance does not guarantee future results.