EAOM vs. MFUL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EAOM (iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF) and MFUL (Mindful Conservative ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. EAOM is passively managed, while MFUL is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EAOM returned 10.47%/yr vs 4.96%/yr for MFUL. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EAOM charges 0.18%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for MFUL.

Performance

EAOM vs. MFUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM) and Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAOM achieves a 5.08% return, which is significantly higher than MFUL's 3.28% return.

EAOM

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.36%
• YTD: 5.08%
• 6M: 5.24%
• 1Y: 14.66%
• 3Y*: 10.47%
• 5Y*: 4.28%
• 10Y*: —

MFUL

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 1.45%
• YTD: 3.28%
• 6M: 3.33%
• 1Y: 7.13%
• 3Y*: 4.96%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EAOM vs. MFUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EAOM iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF	5.08%	12.90%	7.29%	11.83%	-15.48%	-0.14%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.28%	4.51%	5.36%	2.24%	-12.46%	-1.61%

Correlation

The correlation between EAOM and MFUL is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2021	0.74

The correlation between EAOM and MFUL shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (all time) to 0.91 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EAOM vs. MFUL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EAOM	MFUL
Technology	30.2%	25.8%
Financial Services	16.6%	10.7%
Industrials	11.0%	9.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	8.7%
Healthcare	8.6%	8.4%
Communication Services	8.3%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	6.7%
Energy	3.8%	8.0%
Basic Materials	2.8%	5.5%
Utilities	2.5%	5.5%
Real Estate	2.3%	2.4%

Return for Risk

EAOM vs. MFUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAOM

EAOM Risk / Return Rank: 68
EAOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EAOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
EAOM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EAOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
EAOM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

MFUL

MFUL Risk / Return Rank: 52
MFUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
MFUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
MFUL Omega Ratio Rank: 58
MFUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MFUL Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

EAOM vs. MFUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM) and Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL). 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.

	EAOM	MFUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	1.82	+0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.31	2.59	+0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.35	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	2.13	+0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	8.24	+4.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EAOM vs. MFUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAOM Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the MFUL Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAOM and MFUL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EAOM	MFUL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.29	1.82	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	0.01	+0.75

Drawdowns

EAOM vs. MFUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAOM drawdown since its inception was -20.73%, which is greater than MFUL's maximum drawdown of -16.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAOM and MFUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAOM	MFUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.73%	-16.41%	-4.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.17%	-3.36%	-1.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.63%	-4.74%	-2.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.73%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.45%	-0.46%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.97%	-9.50%	+4.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	0.87%	+0.30%

Volatility

EAOM vs. MFUL - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF (EAOM) has a higher volatility of 2.31% compared to Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) at 1.46%. This indicates that EAOM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAOM	MFUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.31%	1.46%	+0.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.24%	3.23%	+2.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.44%	3.93%	+2.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.07%	4.24%	+3.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.91%	4.24%	+3.67%

EAOM vs. MFUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EAOM has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than MFUL's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

EAOM vs. MFUL - Dividend Comparison

EAOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.78%, less than MFUL's 3.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EAOM iShares ESG Aware Moderate Allocation ETF	2.78%	2.89%	2.89%	2.70%	1.93%	1.32%	1.02%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.01%	3.31%	2.59%	5.00%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAOM and MFUL in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, EAOM and MFUL move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EAOM or MFUL?

EAOM has higher volatility (2.31%) compared to MFUL (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAOM dropped -20.73% vs MFUL's -16.41%.

Which ETF is better, EAOM or MFUL?

On 3-year performance, EAOM leads with 10.47% vs 4.96% for MFUL. On fees, EAOM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, MFUL has been the lower-risk option at 1.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EAOM or MFUL?

Over the 3-year period, EAOM has performed better with a 10.47% return vs 4.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAOM or MFUL?

EAOM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for MFUL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EAOM or MFUL?

MFUL has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 2.78% for EAOM.

What is the main difference between EAOM and MFUL?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Mohr Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EAOM and 1.10% for MFUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.82), 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.