GFGF vs. MTUM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GFGF (Guru Favorite Stocks ETF) and MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GFGF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by GuruFocus, while MTUM is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index. GFGF is actively managed, while MTUM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GFGF returned 16.15%/yr vs 33.87%/yr for MTUM. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GFGF charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for MTUM.

Performance

GFGF vs. MTUM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) 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, GFGF achieves a -1.94% return, which is significantly lower than MTUM's 32.00% return.

GFGF

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: -2.20%
• YTD: -1.94%
• 6M: -2.37%
• 1Y: 8.97%
• 3Y*: 16.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MTUM

• 1D: -4.48%
• 1M: 8.74%
• YTD: 32.00%
• 6M: 29.92%
• 1Y: 41.78%
• 3Y*: 33.87%
• 5Y*: 15.18%
• 10Y*: 17.49%

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

GFGF vs. MTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	-1.94%	13.11%	26.12%	24.03%	-20.32%	1.03%
MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF	32.00%	22.15%	32.89%	9.15%	-18.27%	0.29%

Correlation

The correlation between GFGF and MTUM is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2021	0.76

The correlation between GFGF and MTUM shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.77 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GFGF vs. MTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GFGF	MTUM
Technology	36.0%	50.2%
Financial Services	30.1%	5.0%
Healthcare	14.1%	3.5%
Communication Services	10.9%	5.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.6%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	3.7%
Industrials	2.4%	15.0%
Real Estate	2.0%	1.3%
Basic Materials	-	2.3%
Energy	-	10.5%
Utilities	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

GFGF vs. MTUM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFGF

GFGF Risk / Return Rank: 19
GFGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
GFGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
GFGF Omega Ratio Rank: 19
GFGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
GFGF Martin Ratio Rank: 19

MTUM

MTUM Risk / Return Rank: 64
MTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
MTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
MTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
MTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
MTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

GFGF vs. MTUM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) 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.

	GFGF	MTUM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.71	1.92	-1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.05	2.53	-1.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.35	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.59	3.64	-3.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.01	13.91	-11.90

GFGF vs. MTUM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFGF Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is lower than the MTUM Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFGF 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

GFGF vs. MTUM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFGF drawdown since its inception was -27.98%, smaller than the maximum MTUM drawdown of -34.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFGF and MTUM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFGF	MTUM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.98%	-34.08%	+6.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.22%	-11.54%	-3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-20.99%	+5.39%
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	-3.87%	-4.48%	+0.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.20%	-6.19%	-2.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.46%	3.01%	+1.45%

Volatility

GFGF vs. MTUM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) is 4.03%, while iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a volatility of 12.20%. This indicates that GFGF 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

	GFGF	MTUM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.03%	12.20%	-8.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	19.44%	-9.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.74%	21.93%	-9.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.05%	21.15%	-2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.05%	21.31%	-2.26%

GFGF vs. MTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFGF has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than MTUM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

GFGF vs. MTUM - Dividend Comparison

GFGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than MTUM's 0.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	0.22%	0.21%	0.10%	0.08%	0.42%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF	0.56%	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 GFGF and MTUM in my portfolio?

GFGF and MTUM have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GFGF or MTUM?

MTUM has higher volatility (12.20%) compared to GFGF (4.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GFGF dropped -27.98% vs MTUM's -34.08%.

Which ETF is better, GFGF or MTUM?

On 3-year performance, MTUM leads with 33.87% vs 16.15% for GFGF. On fees, MTUM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, GFGF has been the lower-risk option at 4.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GFGF or MTUM?

Over the 3-year period, MTUM has performed better with a 33.87% return vs 16.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFGF or MTUM?

MTUM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for GFGF.

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

MTUM has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.22% for GFGF.

What is the main difference between GFGF and MTUM?

GFGF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while MTUM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: GuruFocus and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for GFGF and 0.15% for MTUM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 0.71), 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.