AMOM vs. ULVM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AMOM (QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF) and ULVM (VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF) are both Momentum funds. AMOM is actively managed, while ULVM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AMOM returned 11.70%/yr vs 12.23%/yr for ULVM. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AMOM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ULVM.

Performance

AMOM vs. ULVM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF (AMOM) and VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF (ULVM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMOM achieves a 26.78% return, which is significantly higher than ULVM's 16.65% return.

AMOM

• 1D: -4.33%
• 1M: 5.97%
• YTD: 26.78%
• 6M: 24.27%
• 1Y: 40.35%
• 3Y*: 26.54%
• 5Y*: 11.70%
• 10Y*: —

ULVM

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 2.65%
• YTD: 16.65%
• 6M: 15.46%
• 1Y: 28.69%
• 3Y*: 21.42%
• 5Y*: 12.23%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AMOM vs. ULVM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AMOM QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF	26.78%	7.69%	35.79%	27.06%	-26.29%	13.08%	53.81%	9.64%
ULVM VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF	16.65%	15.84%	19.76%	10.16%	-9.04%	31.06%	3.51%	9.69%

Correlation

The correlation between AMOM and ULVM is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2019	0.68

The correlation between AMOM and ULVM shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.72 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AMOM vs. ULVM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMOM	ULVM
Technology	50.2%	13.5%
Industrials	21.9%	12.3%
Energy	11.8%	3.3%
Healthcare	7.7%	10.2%
Communication Services	7.4%	3.4%
Financial Services	6.2%	22.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	4.6%
Basic Materials	4.6%	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	3.0%	5.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	8.5%
Utilities	1.1%	12.2%

Return for Risk

AMOM vs. ULVM — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMOM

AMOM Risk / Return Rank: 55
AMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
AMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
AMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 49
AMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
AMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

ULVM

ULVM Risk / Return Rank: 86
ULVM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
ULVM Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
ULVM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
ULVM Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ULVM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

AMOM vs. ULVM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF (AMOM) and VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF (ULVM). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AMOM	ULVM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	2.65	-0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	3.75	-1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.46	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.09	4.46	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.70	18.39	-7.69

AMOM vs. ULVM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMOM Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the ULVM Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMOM and ULVM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AMOM vs. ULVM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMOM drawdown since its inception was -39.68%, roughly equal to the maximum ULVM drawdown of -40.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMOM and ULVM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMOM	ULVM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.68%	-40.71%	+1.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.10%	-6.47%	-6.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.26%	-18.14%	-12.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.68%	-19.77%	-19.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.33%	-0.52%	-3.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.75%	-5.72%	-5.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.78%	1.56%	+2.22%

Volatility

AMOM vs. ULVM - Volatility Comparison

QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF (AMOM) has a higher volatility of 12.24% compared to VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF (ULVM) at 3.34%. This indicates that AMOM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ULVM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMOM	ULVM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.24%	3.34%	+8.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.66%	8.31%	+11.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.29%	10.92%	+13.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.26%	15.48%	+8.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.22%	18.82%	+6.40%

AMOM vs. ULVM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMOM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ULVM's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMOM vs. ULVM - Dividend Comparison

AMOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than ULVM's 1.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AMOM QRAFT AI-Enhanced U.S. Large Cap Momentum ETF	0.07%	0.09%	0.00%	0.47%	0.72%	0.74%	24.31%	5.51%	0.00%	0.00%
ULVM VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF	1.62%	1.81%	1.57%	1.94%	1.91%	1.36%	1.51%	1.88%	1.67%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMOM and ULVM in my portfolio?

AMOM and ULVM have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMOM or ULVM?

AMOM has higher volatility (12.24%) compared to ULVM (3.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMOM dropped -39.68% vs ULVM's -40.71%.

Which ETF is better, AMOM or ULVM?

On 5-year performance, ULVM leads with 12.23% vs 11.70% for AMOM. On fees, ULVM is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ULVM has been the lower-risk option at 3.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMOM or ULVM?

Over the 5-year period, ULVM has performed better with a 12.23% return vs 11.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMOM or ULVM?

ULVM is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for AMOM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMOM or ULVM?

ULVM has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.07% for AMOM.

What is the main difference between AMOM and ULVM?

They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Victory Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for AMOM and 0.20% for ULVM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ULVM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 1.67), 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.