ISMF vs. MFUT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

ISMF (iShares Managed Futures Active ETF) and MFUT (Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF) are both Systematic Trend funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ISMF returned 21.28% vs 37.88% for MFUT. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ISMF charges 0.80%/yr vs 1.18%/yr for MFUT.

Performance

ISMF vs. MFUT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) and Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISMF achieves a 7.48% return, which is significantly lower than MFUT's 21.83% return.

ISMF

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.89%
• YTD: 7.48%
• 6M: 10.36%
• 1Y: 21.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MFUT

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 4.73%
• YTD: 21.83%
• 6M: 25.28%
• 1Y: 37.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ISMF vs. MFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ISMF iShares Managed Futures Active ETF	7.48%	11.58%
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF	21.83%	5.38%

Correlation

The correlation between ISMF and MFUT is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 14, 2025	0.38

Return for Risk

ISMF vs. MFUT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISMF

ISMF Risk / Return Rank: 86
ISMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ISMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
ISMF Omega Ratio Rank: 89
ISMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ISMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

MFUT

MFUT Risk / Return Rank: 76
MFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
MFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
MFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
MFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

ISMF vs. MFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) and Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT). 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.

	ISMF	MFUT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	2.63	+0.08
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	3.21	+0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.52	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.46	4.14	+1.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.89	13.41	+5.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ISMF vs. MFUT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is comparable to the MFUT Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISMF and MFUT, 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

	ISMF	MFUT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.71	2.63	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.08	-0.01	+2.10

Drawdowns

ISMF vs. MFUT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISMF drawdown since its inception was -4.23%, smaller than the maximum MFUT drawdown of -29.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISMF and MFUT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISMF	MFUT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-29.28%	+25.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.94%	-9.23%	+5.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.81%	-1.01%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-16.63%	+15.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.14%	2.85%	-1.71%

Volatility

ISMF vs. MFUT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) is 1.72%, while Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) has a volatility of 3.55%. This indicates that ISMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MFUT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ISMF	MFUT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.72%	3.55%	-1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.29%	12.65%	-6.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.88%	14.47%	-6.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.76%	13.39%	-5.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.76%	13.39%	-5.63%

ISMF vs. MFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISMF has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than MFUT's 1.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISMF vs. MFUT - Dividend Comparison

ISMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.80%, while MFUT has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ISMF iShares Managed Futures Active ETF	5.80%	6.23%	0.00%
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.33%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISMF and MFUT in my portfolio?

ISMF and MFUT have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISMF or MFUT?

MFUT has higher volatility (3.55%) compared to ISMF (1.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISMF dropped -4.23% vs MFUT's -29.28%.

Which ETF is better, ISMF or MFUT?

On 1-year performance, MFUT leads with 37.88% vs 21.28% for ISMF. On fees, ISMF is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, ISMF has been the lower-risk option at 1.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISMF or MFUT?

Over the 1-year period, MFUT has performed better with a 37.88% return vs 21.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISMF or MFUT?

ISMF is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 1.18% for MFUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ISMF or MFUT?

ISMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.80%, compared with 0.00% for MFUT.

What is the main difference between ISMF and MFUT?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for ISMF and 1.18% for MFUT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ISMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.63), 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.