BLUX vs. MTUM

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

BLUX (Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF) and MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BLUX is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund managed by Bluemonte, while MTUM is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index. Over the past year, BLUX returned 22.96% vs 34.62% for MTUM. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLUX charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for MTUM.

Performance

BLUX vs. MTUM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLUX achieves a 14.70% return, which is significantly lower than MTUM's 28.00% return.

BLUX

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 1.23%
• 6M: 10.75%
• YTD: 14.70%
• 1Y: 22.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MTUM

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: -1.32%
• 6M: 23.75%
• YTD: 28.00%
• 1Y: 34.62%
• 3Y*: 31.08%
• 5Y*: 14.59%
• 10Y*: 16.52%

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

BLUX vs. MTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BLUX Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF	14.70%	12.62%
MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF	28.00%	9.24%

Correlation

The correlation between BLUX and MTUM is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2025	0.76

The correlation between BLUX and MTUM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLUX vs. MTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLUX	MTUM
Technology	26.7%	50.2%
Financial Services	14.1%	5.0%
Industrials	12.0%	15.0%
Healthcare	11.6%	3.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	2.9%
Communication Services	6.6%	5.1%
Real Estate	4.8%	1.3%
Energy	4.6%	10.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	3.7%
Basic Materials	3.4%	2.3%
Utilities	2.6%	0.6%

Return for Risk

BLUX vs. MTUM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLUX

BLUX Risk / Return Rank: 64
BLUX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
BLUX Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BLUX Omega Ratio Rank: 59
BLUX Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
BLUX Martin Ratio Rank: 73

MTUM

MTUM Risk / Return Rank: 60
MTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
MTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
MTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 55
MTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
MTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

BLUX vs. MTUM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF (BLUX) 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.

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.

	BLUX	MTUM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.62	1.46	+0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	1.97	+0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.27	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.55	3.01	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.59	10.29	+0.31

BLUX vs. MTUM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLUX Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is comparable to the MTUM Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLUX 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.

Drawdowns

BLUX vs. MTUM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLUX drawdown since its inception was -9.03%, smaller than the maximum MTUM drawdown of -34.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLUX and MTUM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLUX	MTUM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.03%	-34.08%	+25.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.03%	-11.54%	+2.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.99%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.28%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	-7.38%	+6.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.27%	-6.19%	+4.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.17%	3.37%	-1.20%

Volatility

BLUX vs. MTUM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF (BLUX) is 3.25%, while iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a volatility of 12.47%. This indicates that BLUX 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.

Volatility by Period

	BLUX	MTUM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.25%	12.47%	-9.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.89%	21.55%	-10.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.20%	23.81%	-9.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.00%	21.55%	-7.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.00%	21.52%	-7.52%

BLUX vs. MTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLUX has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than MTUM's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BLUX vs. MTUM - Dividend Comparison

BLUX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.07%, more than MTUM's 0.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BLUX Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF	1.07%	0.73%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF	0.58%	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

Can I hold both BLUX and MTUM in my portfolio?

BLUX and MTUM have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLUX or MTUM?

MTUM has higher volatility (12.47%) compared to BLUX (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLUX dropped -9.03% vs MTUM's -34.08%.

Which ETF is better, BLUX or MTUM?

On 1-year performance, MTUM leads with 34.62% vs 22.96% for BLUX. On fees, MTUM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BLUX has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLUX or MTUM?

Over the 1-year period, MTUM has performed better with a 34.62% return vs 22.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLUX or MTUM?

MTUM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for BLUX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLUX or MTUM?

BLUX has the higher dividend yield at 1.07%, compared with 0.58% for MTUM.

What is the main difference between BLUX and MTUM?

BLUX is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while MTUM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: Bluemonte and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for BLUX and 0.15% for MTUM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLUX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.62 vs 1.46), 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.