HFGM vs. MNA

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

HFGM (Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF) and MNA (IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HFGM is a Macro Trading fund actively managed by Unlimited, while MNA is a Hedge Fund fund tracking the IQ Merger Arbitrage Index. HFGM is actively managed, while MNA is passively managed. Over the past year, HFGM returned 33.58% vs 4.12% for MNA. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HFGM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for MNA.

Performance

HFGM vs. MNA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) and IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HFGM achieves a 9.67% return, which is significantly higher than MNA's 1.53% return.

HFGM

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: -6.39%
• YTD: 9.67%
• 6M: 9.92%
• 1Y: 33.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MNA

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: -0.50%
• YTD: 1.53%
• 6M: 1.05%
• 1Y: 4.12%
• 3Y*: 5.71%
• 5Y*: 1.93%
• 10Y*: 2.75%

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

HFGM vs. MNA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	9.67%	26.88%
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF	1.53%	3.62%

Correlation

The correlation between HFGM and MNA is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2025	0.32

Return for Risk

HFGM vs. MNA — Risk / Return Rank

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

HFGM

HFGM Risk / Return Rank: 47
HFGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
HFGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
HFGM Omega Ratio Rank: 41
HFGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
HFGM Martin Ratio Rank: 48

MNA

MNA Risk / Return Rank: 35
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 22
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

HFGM vs. MNA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) 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.

	HFGM	MNA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	0.83	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	1.23	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.15	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	2.81	+0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.59	6.89	+0.70

HFGM vs. MNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HFGM Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is higher than the MNA Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HFGM 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.

Drawdowns

HFGM vs. MNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HFGM drawdown since its inception was -10.97%, smaller than the maximum MNA drawdown of -16.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HFGM and MNA.

Drawdown Indicators

	HFGM	MNA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.97%	-16.68%	+5.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.97%	-1.40%	-9.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-16.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.63%	-0.79%	-8.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.91%	-2.83%	-0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.38%	0.57%	+3.81%

Volatility

HFGM vs. MNA - Volatility Comparison

Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) has a higher volatility of 5.15% compared to IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) at 1.34%. This indicates that HFGM'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.

Volatility by Period

	HFGM	MNA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.15%	1.34%	+3.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.78%	3.52%	+14.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.85%	4.76%	+18.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.68%	4.98%	+16.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.68%	6.55%	+15.13%

HFGM vs. MNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

HFGM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than MNA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

HFGM vs. MNA - Dividend Comparison

HFGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.24%, while MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	10.24%	11.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both HFGM and MNA in my portfolio?

HFGM and MNA have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HFGM or MNA?

HFGM has higher volatility (5.15%) compared to MNA (1.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HFGM dropped -10.97% vs MNA's -16.68%.

Which ETF is better, HFGM or MNA?

On 1-year performance, HFGM leads with 33.58% vs 4.12% for MNA. On fees, MNA is cheaper at 0.77% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, HFGM or MNA?

Over the 1-year period, HFGM has performed better with a 33.58% return vs 4.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HFGM or MNA?

MNA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for HFGM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HFGM or MNA?

HFGM has the higher dividend yield at 10.24%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

What is the main difference between HFGM and MNA?

HFGM is categorized as Macro Trading, while MNA is Hedge Fund. They also come from different issuers: Unlimited and New York Life. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for HFGM and 0.77% for MNA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HFGM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.46 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.