MFUL vs. EAOK

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MFUL (Mindful Conservative ETF) and EAOK (iShares ESG Aware Conservative Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. MFUL is actively managed, while EAOK is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MFUL returned 5.05%/yr vs 8.93%/yr for EAOK. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MFUL charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EAOK.

Performance

MFUL vs. EAOK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) and iShares ESG Aware Conservative Allocation ETF (EAOK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFUL achieves a 3.57% return, which is significantly lower than EAOK's 4.26% return.

MFUL

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: 3.57%
• 6M: 3.81%
• 1Y: 7.53%
• 3Y*: 5.05%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAOK

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 1.84%
• YTD: 4.26%
• 6M: 4.59%
• 1Y: 12.86%
• 3Y*: 8.93%
• 5Y*: 3.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

MFUL vs. EAOK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.57%	4.51%	5.36%	2.24%	-12.46%	-1.61%
EAOK iShares ESG Aware Conservative Allocation ETF	4.26%	11.47%	5.81%	10.13%	-14.92%	-0.11%

Correlation

The correlation between MFUL and EAOK is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2021	0.71

The correlation between MFUL and EAOK shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (all time) to 0.87 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MFUL vs. EAOK - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MFUL	EAOK
Technology	25.8%	10.2%
Financial Services	10.7%	4.8%
Industrials	9.9%	3.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	2.7%
Communication Services	8.4%	2.6%
Healthcare	8.4%	2.4%
Energy	8.0%	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	1.3%
Utilities	5.5%	0.8%
Basic Materials	5.5%	0.8%
Real Estate	2.4%	0.6%

Return for Risk

MFUL vs. EAOK — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFUL

MFUL Risk / Return Rank: 54
MFUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
MFUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
MFUL Omega Ratio Rank: 61
MFUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
MFUL Martin Ratio Rank: 51

EAOK

EAOK Risk / Return Rank: 69
EAOK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
EAOK Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
EAOK Omega Ratio Rank: 76
EAOK Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
EAOK Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

MFUL vs. EAOK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) and iShares ESG Aware Conservative Allocation ETF (EAOK). 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.

	MFUL	EAOK	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	2.36	-0.43
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	3.45	-0.71
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.46	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.27	2.91	-0.64
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.78	12.74	-3.96
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MFUL vs. EAOK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFUL Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the EAOK Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFUL and EAOK, 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

	MFUL	EAOK	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.93	2.36	-0.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.02	0.66	-0.64

Drawdowns

MFUL vs. EAOK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFUL drawdown since its inception was -16.41%, smaller than the maximum EAOK drawdown of -19.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFUL and EAOK.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFUL	EAOK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.41%	-19.91%	+3.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.36%	-4.43%	+1.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.74%	-7.08%	+2.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.18%	0.00%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.51%	-5.03%	-4.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.87%	1.01%	-0.14%

Volatility

MFUL vs. EAOK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) is 1.43%, while iShares ESG Aware Conservative Allocation ETF (EAOK) has a volatility of 2.05%. This indicates that MFUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAOK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFUL	EAOK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.43%	2.05%	-0.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.23%	4.48%	-1.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.92%	5.47%	-1.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.24%	7.04%	-2.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.24%	6.83%	-2.59%

MFUL vs. EAOK - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFUL has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than EAOK's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFUL vs. EAOK - Dividend Comparison

MFUL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.00%, less than EAOK's 3.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EAOK iShares ESG Aware Conservative Allocation ETF	3.36%	3.18%	3.15%	2.80%	2.27%	1.19%	1.00%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.00%	3.31%	2.59%	5.00%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MFUL and EAOK in my portfolio?

MFUL and EAOK have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MFUL or EAOK?

EAOK has higher volatility (2.05%) compared to MFUL (1.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFUL dropped -16.41% vs EAOK's -19.91%.

Which ETF is better, MFUL or EAOK?

On 3-year performance, EAOK leads with 8.93% vs 5.05% for MFUL. On fees, EAOK is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, MFUL has been the lower-risk option at 1.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFUL or EAOK?

Over the 3-year period, EAOK has performed better with a 8.93% return vs 5.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFUL or EAOK?

EAOK is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for MFUL.

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

EAOK has the higher dividend yield at 3.36%, compared with 3.00% for MFUL.

What is the main difference between MFUL and EAOK?

They also come from different issuers: Mohr Funds and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for MFUL and 0.18% for EAOK.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAOK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.93), 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.