PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LRGF vs. MTUM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LRGF vs. MTUM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGF achieves a 7.84% return, which is significantly lower than MTUM's 32.00% return. Over the past 10 years, LRGF has underperformed MTUM with an annualized return of 14.05%, while MTUM has yielded a comparatively higher 17.49% annualized return.


LRGF

1D
-1.26%
1M
-0.45%
YTD
7.84%
6M
6.74%
1Y
21.21%
3Y*
21.28%
5Y*
13.54%
10Y*
14.05%

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)

LRGF vs. MTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LRGF
iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF
7.84%16.48%26.59%25.85%-14.77%25.01%11.11%26.11%-9.66%21.13%
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
32.00%22.15%32.89%9.15%-18.27%13.36%29.86%27.25%-1.67%37.50%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGF and MTUM is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.82

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.88

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 30, 2015

0.81

The correlation between LRGF and MTUM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGF vs. MTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LRGF
MTUM

Technology

38.9%
50.2%

Financial Services

11.7%
5.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
2.9%

Healthcare

8.8%
3.5%

Communication Services

7.9%
5.1%

Industrials

7.8%
15.0%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
3.7%

Energy

3.3%
10.5%

Utilities

2.1%
0.6%

Basic Materials

1.9%
2.3%

Real Estate

1.3%
1.3%

Technology

LRGF
38.9%
MTUM
50.2%

Financial Services

LRGF
11.7%
MTUM
5.0%

Consumer Cyclical

LRGF
11.0%
MTUM
2.9%

Healthcare

LRGF
8.8%
MTUM
3.5%

Communication Services

LRGF
7.9%
MTUM
5.1%

Industrials

LRGF
7.8%
MTUM
15.0%

Consumer Defensive

LRGF
5.3%
MTUM
3.7%

Energy

LRGF
3.3%
MTUM
10.5%

Utilities

LRGF
2.1%
MTUM
0.6%

Basic Materials

LRGF
1.9%
MTUM
2.3%

Real Estate

LRGF
1.3%
MTUM
1.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LRGF vs. MTUM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGF
LRGF Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
LRGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LRGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
LRGF Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
LRGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
LRGF Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank

MTUM
MTUM Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
MTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
MTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
MTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
MTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LRGF vs. MTUM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) 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.


LRGFMTUMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.20

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.35

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.39

3.64

-1.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.61

13.91

-4.31

LRGF vs. MTUM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGF Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is comparable to the MTUM Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGF 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LRGF vs. MTUM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGF drawdown since its inception was -36.03%, which is greater than MTUM's maximum drawdown of -34.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGF and MTUM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LRGFMTUMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.03%

-34.08%

-1.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.92%

-11.54%

+2.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.44%

-20.99%

+1.55%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.62%

-32.28%

+10.66%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.03%

-34.08%

-1.95%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.10%

-4.48%

+1.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.53%

-6.19%

+1.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.21%

3.01%

-0.80%

Volatility

LRGF vs. MTUM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) is 4.77%, while iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a volatility of 12.20%. This indicates that LRGF 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LRGFMTUMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.77%

12.20%

-7.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.90%

19.44%

-9.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.63%

21.93%

-9.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.10%

21.15%

-4.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.33%

21.31%

-2.98%

LRGF vs. MTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than MTUM's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

LRGF vs. MTUM - Dividend Comparison

LRGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.10%, more than MTUM's 0.56% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LRGF
iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF
1.10%1.16%1.23%1.49%1.78%1.05%1.35%1.76%3.27%1.68%1.56%0.83%
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


LRGF and MTUM have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MTUM has higher volatility (12.20%) compared to LRGF (4.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGF dropped -36.03% vs MTUM's -34.08%.

On 10-year performance, MTUM leads with 17.49% vs 14.05% for LRGF. On fees, MTUM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LRGF has been the lower-risk option at 4.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, MTUM has performed better with a 17.49% return vs 14.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MTUM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for LRGF.

LRGF has the higher dividend yield at 1.10%, compared with 0.56% for MTUM.

LRGF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while MTUM is Momentum. LRGF tracks MSCI USA Diversified Multi-Factor, while MTUM tracks MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LRGF and 0.15% for MTUM.

MTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.69), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LRGF and MTUM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer