HFMF vs. CTA

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

HFMF (Unlimited HFMF Managed Futures ETF) and CTA (Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both Systematic Trend funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, HFMF returned 11.33% vs 0.36% for CTA. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HFMF charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.78%/yr for CTA.

Performance

HFMF vs. CTA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Unlimited HFMF Managed Futures ETF (HFMF) and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HFMF achieves a 4.38% return, which is significantly higher than CTA's 0.06% return.

HFMF

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: -0.26%
• 6M: -1.87%
• YTD: 4.38%
• 1Y: 11.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CTA

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -2.66%
• 6M: -2.62%
• YTD: 0.06%
• 1Y: 0.36%
• 3Y*: 8.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HFMF vs. CTA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HFMF Unlimited HFMF Managed Futures ETF	4.38%	6.34%
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	0.06%	0.84%

Correlation

The correlation between HFMF and CTA is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2025	0.48

Return for Risk

HFMF vs. CTA — Risk / Return Rank

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

HFMF

HFMF Risk / Return Rank: 23
HFMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
HFMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
HFMF Omega Ratio Rank: 25
HFMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
HFMF Martin Ratio Rank: 21

CTA

CTA Risk / Return Rank: 10
CTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
CTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Omega Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
CTA Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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.

HFMF vs. CTA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Unlimited HFMF Managed Futures ETF (HFMF) and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA). 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.

	HFMF	CTA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.71	0.02	+0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.07	0.16	+0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.02	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.77	0.02	+0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.96	0.05	+1.90

HFMF vs. CTA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HFMF Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is higher than the CTA Sharpe Ratio of 0.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HFMF and CTA, 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

HFMF vs. CTA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HFMF drawdown since its inception was -14.69%, smaller than the maximum CTA drawdown of -20.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HFMF and CTA.

Drawdown Indicators

	HFMF	CTA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.69%	-20.44%	+5.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.69%	-20.44%	+5.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.65%	-17.90%	+5.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.98%	-5.97%	+1.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.81%	7.02%	-1.21%

Volatility

HFMF vs. CTA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Unlimited HFMF Managed Futures ETF (HFMF) is 2.90%, while Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) has a volatility of 4.99%. This indicates that HFMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CTA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HFMF	CTA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.90%	4.99%	-2.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.49%	17.97%	-5.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.09%	20.59%	-4.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.06%	16.63%	-0.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.06%	16.63%	-0.57%

HFMF vs. CTA - Expense Ratio Comparison

HFMF has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than CTA's 0.78% expense ratio.

Dividends

HFMF vs. CTA - Dividend Comparison

HFMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, less than CTA's 5.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.02%	3.19%	4.80%	7.78%	6.58%
HFMF Unlimited HFMF Managed Futures ETF	2.84%	2.97%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HFMF and CTA in my portfolio?

HFMF and CTA have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HFMF or CTA?

CTA has higher volatility (4.99%) compared to HFMF (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HFMF dropped -14.69% vs CTA's -20.44%.

Which ETF is better, HFMF or CTA?

On 1-year performance, HFMF leads with 11.33% vs 0.36% for CTA. On fees, CTA is cheaper at 0.78% per year. On volatility, HFMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HFMF or CTA?

Over the 1-year period, HFMF has performed better with a 11.33% return vs 0.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HFMF or CTA?

CTA is cheaper with a 0.78% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for HFMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HFMF or CTA?

CTA has the higher dividend yield at 5.02%, compared with 2.84% for HFMF.

What is the main difference between HFMF and CTA?

They also come from different issuers: Unlimited and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for HFMF and 0.78% for CTA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HFMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs 0.02), 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.