PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ABFL vs. MTUM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ABFL vs. MTUM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ABFL achieves a 17.63% return, which is significantly lower than MTUM's 31.75% return.


ABFL

1D
0.02%
1M
6.04%
YTD
17.63%
6M
17.18%
1Y
20.72%
3Y*
19.01%
5Y*
12.77%
10Y*

MTUM

1D
1.06%
1M
15.90%
YTD
31.75%
6M
32.38%
1Y
41.76%
3Y*
34.75%
5Y*
15.21%
10Y*
17.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ABFL vs. MTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ABFL
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF
17.63%8.07%18.26%22.97%-14.60%30.66%18.30%26.03%-6.26%15.23%
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
31.75%22.15%32.89%9.15%-18.27%13.36%29.86%27.25%-1.67%12.68%

Correlation

The correlation between ABFL and MTUM is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.83

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.85

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 25, 2017

0.86

The correlation between ABFL and MTUM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

ABFL vs. MTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ABFL
MTUM

Technology

35.2%
44.4%

Industrials

20.9%
15.6%

Healthcare

12.5%
6.9%

Energy

7.9%
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

7.3%
3.3%

Consumer Cyclical

6.3%
3.6%

Basic Materials

4.3%
1.7%

Communication Services

2.9%
7.4%

Financial Services

2.8%
10.4%

Real Estate

-

1.8%

Utilities

-

1.6%

Technology

ABFL
35.2%
MTUM
44.4%

Industrials

ABFL
20.9%
MTUM
15.6%

Healthcare

ABFL
12.5%
MTUM
6.9%

Energy

ABFL
7.9%
MTUM
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

ABFL
7.3%
MTUM
3.3%

Consumer Cyclical

ABFL
6.3%
MTUM
3.6%

Basic Materials

ABFL
4.3%
MTUM
1.7%

Communication Services

ABFL
2.9%
MTUM
7.4%

Financial Services

ABFL
2.8%
MTUM
10.4%

Real Estate

ABFL

-

MTUM
1.8%

Utilities

ABFL

-

MTUM
1.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ABFL vs. MTUM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ABFL
ABFL Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
ABFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ABFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
ABFL Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
ABFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
ABFL Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank

MTUM
MTUM Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
MTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
MTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
MTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
MTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ABFL vs. MTUM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


ABFLMTUMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.84

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.39

-0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.90

3.64

-0.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.41

14.50

-5.09

ABFL vs. MTUM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the MTUM Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABFL and MTUM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ABFLMTUMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.36

2.20

-0.84

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.75

0.74

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.79

0.85

-0.06

Drawdowns

ABFL vs. MTUM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, roughly equal to the maximum MTUM drawdown of -34.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and MTUM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ABFLMTUMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.95%

-34.08%

-0.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.17%

-11.54%

+4.37%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.92%

-20.99%

+1.07%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.88%

-32.28%

+10.40%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.99%

-6.21%

+1.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.21%

2.89%

-0.68%

Volatility

ABFL vs. MTUM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is 4.48%, while iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a volatility of 7.68%. This indicates that ABFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MTUM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ABFLMTUMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.48%

7.68%

-3.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.70%

16.46%

-4.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.31%

19.04%

-3.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.09%

20.60%

-3.51%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.71%

21.03%

-2.32%

ABFL vs. MTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than MTUM's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

ABFL vs. MTUM - Dividend Comparison

ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than MTUM's 0.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ABFL
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF
0.53%0.62%0.70%0.94%1.36%9.63%0.41%0.72%0.62%0.40%0.00%0.00%
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
0.60%0.91%0.75%1.35%1.80%0.55%0.83%1.48%1.27%1.02%1.43%1.12%

Frequently Asked Questions


ABFL and MTUM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MTUM has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to ABFL (4.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABFL dropped -34.95% vs MTUM's -34.08%.

On 5-year performance, MTUM leads with 15.21% vs 12.77% for ABFL. On fees, MTUM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ABFL has been the lower-risk option at 4.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, MTUM has performed better with a 15.21% return vs 12.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MTUM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ABFL.

MTUM has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.53% for ABFL.

ABFL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while MTUM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: Abacus and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.15% for MTUM.

MTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 1.36), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ABFL and MTUM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer