EVMT vs. FAAR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EVMT (Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both Commodities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EVMT returned 0.32%/yr vs 8.66%/yr for FAAR. Their 0.08 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EVMT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.

Performance

EVMT vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF (EVMT) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EVMT achieves a 4.75% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 15.98% return.

EVMT

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 2.04%
• 6M: 0.68%
• YTD: 4.75%
• 1Y: 30.34%
• 3Y*: 0.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -6.97%

FAAR

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -0.80%
• 6M: 6.86%
• YTD: 15.98%
• 1Y: 21.75%
• 3Y*: 8.66%
• 5Y*: 6.90%
• 10Y*: 4.38%
• ALL TIME*: 4.24%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EVMT Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF	$34.42K	$27.21K	$65.95K
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	$1.17M	$1.04M	$1.66M

EVMT vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EVMT Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF	4.75%	30.61%	-10.50%	-27.71%	-16.95%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	15.98%	8.07%	5.97%	-5.63%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between EVMT and FAAR is 0.20, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 26, 2022	0.08

The correlation between EVMT and FAAR shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.20 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EVMT vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EVMT

EVMT Risk / Return Rank: 77
EVMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EVMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EVMT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
EVMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EVMT Martin Ratio Rank: 60

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 65
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 67
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 53

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EVMT vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF (EVMT) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.

	EVMT	FAAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.96	1.60	+0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	2.34	+0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.28	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	2.18	+0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.25	6.19	+1.06

EVMT vs. FAAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EVMT Sharpe Ratio is 1.96, which is comparable to the FAAR Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EVMT and FAAR, 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

EVMT vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EVMT drawdown since its inception was -48.34%, which is greater than FAAR's maximum drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVMT and FAAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EVMT	FAAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.34%	-18.03%	-30.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.35%	-9.34%	-2.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.37%	-11.54%	-13.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.69%	-8.77%	-18.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.42%	-7.83%	-26.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.18%	3.29%	+0.89%

Volatility

EVMT vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF (EVMT) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) have volatilities of 2.13% and 2.11%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EVMT	FAAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.13%	2.11%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.11%	9.47%	+2.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.49%	12.74%	+2.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.28%	11.87%	+8.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.28%	11.54%	+8.74%

EVMT vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EVMT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

EVMT vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison

EVMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.27%, more than FAAR's 9.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EVMT Invesco Electric Vehicle Metals Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF	11.27%	11.80%	3.62%	5.49%	0.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.87%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EVMT and FAAR in my portfolio?

EVMT and FAAR have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EVMT or FAAR?

EVMT has higher volatility (2.13%) compared to FAAR (2.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EVMT dropped -48.34% vs FAAR's -18.03%.

Which ETF is better, EVMT or FAAR?

On 3-year performance, FAAR leads with 8.66% vs 0.32% for EVMT. On fees, EVMT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EVMT or FAAR?

Over the 3-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 8.66% return vs 0.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EVMT or FAAR?

EVMT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EVMT or FAAR?

EVMT has the higher dividend yield at 11.27%, compared with 9.87% for FAAR.

What is the main difference between EVMT and FAAR?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EVMT and 0.95% for FAAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EVMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.96 vs 1.60), 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.