PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FVC vs. MNA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FVC vs. MNA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus 5 ETF (FVC) and IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FVC achieves a 15.43% return, which is significantly higher than MNA's 1.53% return. Over the past 10 years, FVC has outperformed MNA with an annualized return of 8.42%, while MNA has yielded a comparatively lower 2.75% annualized return.


FVC

1D
1.37%
1M
4.34%
YTD
15.43%
6M
16.84%
1Y
21.69%
3Y*
9.59%
5Y*
5.18%
10Y*
8.42%

MNA

1D
0.09%
1M
-0.47%
YTD
1.53%
6M
1.00%
1Y
3.91%
3Y*
5.71%
5Y*
1.93%
10Y*
2.75%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FVC vs. MNA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FVC
First Trust Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus 5 ETF
15.43%2.12%12.43%-4.59%-6.03%21.92%12.71%19.28%-8.60%19.74%
MNA
IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF
1.53%8.59%4.93%0.18%-1.61%-3.24%2.72%4.70%2.13%5.97%

Correlation

The correlation between FVC and MNA is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.38

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

0.34

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

0.38

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.37

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2016

0.37

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

FVC vs. MNA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FVC
FVC Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
FVC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FVC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
FVC Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
FVC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
FVC Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank

MNA
MNA Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
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.

FVC vs. MNA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus 5 ETF (FVC) and IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA). 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.


FVCMNADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.15

+0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.64

2.81

-1.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.36

6.89

-0.53

FVC vs. MNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FVC Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is higher than the MNA Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FVC and MNA, 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...

Drawdowns

FVC vs. MNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FVC drawdown since its inception was -30.96%, which is greater than MNA's maximum drawdown of -16.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FVC and MNA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FVCMNADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.96%

-16.68%

-14.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.32%

-1.40%

-11.92%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.75%

-3.01%

-11.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.62%

-10.24%

-12.38%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.96%

-16.68%

-14.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.69%

-0.79%

-0.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.04%

-2.83%

-4.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.42%

0.57%

+2.85%

Volatility

FVC vs. MNA - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus 5 ETF (FVC) has a higher volatility of 6.45% compared to IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) at 1.34%. This indicates that FVC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MNA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FVCMNADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.45%

1.34%

+5.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.58%

3.52%

+10.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.14%

4.76%

+9.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.46%

4.98%

+11.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.69%

6.55%

+11.14%

FVC vs. MNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FVC has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is lower than MNA's 0.77% expense ratio.


Dividends

FVC vs. MNA - Dividend Comparison

FVC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, while MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FVC
First Trust Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus 5 ETF
1.95%2.57%0.78%1.89%1.50%0.09%0.21%1.07%0.24%0.63%0.67%0.00%
MNA
IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%1.20%0.00%0.00%2.30%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.21%0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions


FVC and MNA have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FVC has higher volatility (6.45%) compared to MNA (1.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FVC dropped -30.96% vs MNA's -16.68%.

On 10-year performance, FVC leads with 8.42% vs 2.75% for MNA. On fees, FVC is cheaper at 0.71% per year. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FVC has performed better with a 8.42% return vs 2.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FVC is cheaper with a 0.71% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for MNA.

FVC has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

FVC tracks Dorsey Wright Dynamic Focus Five Index, while MNA tracks IQ Merger Arbitrage Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and New York Life. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for FVC and 0.77% for MNA.

FVC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs 0.83), 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 FVC and MNA

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