GHTA vs. MFUL

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GHTA (Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF) and MFUL (Mindful Conservative ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GHTA returned 9.35%/yr vs 4.93%/yr for MFUL. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GHTA charges 1.21%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for MFUL.

Performance

GHTA vs. MFUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF (GHTA) 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, GHTA achieves a 2.24% return, which is significantly lower than MFUL's 3.49% return.

GHTA

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 0.13%
• YTD: 2.24%
• 6M: 1.10%
• 1Y: 6.74%
• 3Y*: 9.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MFUL

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 1.28%
• YTD: 3.49%
• 6M: 3.47%
• 1Y: 7.17%
• 3Y*: 4.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GHTA vs. MFUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GHTA Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF	2.24%	10.06%	4.78%	14.10%	1.99%	-0.78%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.49%	4.51%	5.36%	2.24%	-12.46%	-0.89%

Correlation

The correlation between GHTA and MFUL is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2021	0.49

The correlation between GHTA and MFUL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

GHTA vs. MFUL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GHTA	MFUL
Technology	25.8%	25.8%
Industrials	21.2%	9.9%
Financial Services	9.9%	10.7%
Real Estate	9.0%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	8.7%
Utilities	6.7%	5.5%
Basic Materials	5.1%	5.5%
Energy	4.5%	8.0%
Healthcare	4.4%	8.4%
Communication Services	4.3%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	6.7%

Return for Risk

GHTA vs. MFUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GHTA

GHTA Risk / Return Rank: 24
GHTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
GHTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
GHTA Omega Ratio Rank: 24
GHTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GHTA Martin Ratio Rank: 22

MFUL

MFUL Risk / Return Rank: 52
MFUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
MFUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
MFUL Omega Ratio Rank: 59
MFUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
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.

GHTA vs. MFUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF (GHTA) 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.

	GHTA	MFUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	1.83	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	2.60	-1.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.35	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.09	2.14	-1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.71	8.29	-5.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GHTA vs. MFUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GHTA Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the MFUL Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GHTA 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

	GHTA	MFUL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83	1.83	-1.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.02	+0.58

Drawdowns

GHTA vs. MFUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GHTA drawdown since its inception was -13.92%, smaller than the maximum MFUL drawdown of -16.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GHTA and MFUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GHTA	MFUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.92%	-16.41%	+2.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.18%	-3.36%	-2.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.91%	-4.74%	-9.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.63%	-0.26%	-2.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.51%	-9.49%	+5.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.49%	0.87%	+1.62%

Volatility

GHTA vs. MFUL - Volatility Comparison

Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF (GHTA) has a higher volatility of 1.90% compared to Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) at 1.44%. This indicates that GHTA'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

	GHTA	MFUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.90%	1.44%	+0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.69%	3.23%	+2.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.11%	3.93%	+4.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.94%	4.24%	+7.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.94%	4.24%	+7.70%

GHTA vs. MFUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GHTA has a 1.21% expense ratio, which is higher than MFUL's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

GHTA vs. MFUL - Dividend Comparison

GHTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.75%, more than MFUL's 3.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GHTA Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF	3.75%	3.84%	2.46%	2.32%	0.38%	0.41%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.00%	3.31%	2.59%	5.00%	0.29%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GHTA and MFUL in my portfolio?

GHTA and MFUL have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GHTA or MFUL?

GHTA has higher volatility (1.90%) compared to MFUL (1.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GHTA dropped -13.92% vs MFUL's -16.41%.

Which ETF is better, GHTA or MFUL?

On 3-year performance, GHTA leads with 9.35% vs 4.93% for MFUL. On fees, MFUL is cheaper at 1.10% per year. On volatility, MFUL has been the lower-risk option at 1.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GHTA or MFUL?

Over the 3-year period, GHTA has performed better with a 9.35% return vs 4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GHTA or MFUL?

MFUL is cheaper with a 1.10% expense ratio, compared with 1.21% for GHTA.

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

GHTA has the higher dividend yield at 3.75%, compared with 3.00% for MFUL.

What is the main difference between GHTA and MFUL?

They also come from different issuers: Goose Hollow and Mohr Funds. Their fees differ too: 1.21% for GHTA and 1.10% for MFUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MFUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 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.