MFUT vs. AGZ
MFUT (Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF) and AGZ (iShares Agency Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Cambria, while AGZ is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Agency Bond Index (USD). MFUT is actively managed, while AGZ is passively managed. Over the past year, MFUT returned 37.88% vs 4.24% for AGZ. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. MFUT charges 1.18%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for AGZ.
Performance
MFUT vs. AGZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFUT achieves a 21.83% return, which is significantly higher than AGZ's 0.29% return.
MFUT
- 1D
- 0.68%
- 1M
- 4.73%
- YTD
- 21.83%
- 6M
- 25.28%
- 1Y
- 37.88%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AGZ
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- -0.12%
- YTD
- 0.29%
- 6M
- 0.54%
- 1Y
- 4.24%
- 3Y*
- 4.15%
- 5Y*
- 1.20%
- 10Y*
- 1.84%
MFUT vs. AGZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF | 21.83% | -1.83% | -16.68% |
AGZ iShares Agency Bond ETF | 0.29% | 6.05% | 3.26% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFUT and AGZ is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2024 | -0.07 |
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
MFUT vs. AGZ — Risk / Return Rank
MFUT
AGZ
MFUT vs. AGZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) and iShares Agency Bond ETF (AGZ). 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.
| MFUT | AGZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.63 | 1.65 | +0.98 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.21 | 2.51 | +0.71 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.52 | 1.31 | +0.21 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.14 | 2.89 | +1.25 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.41 | 9.73 | +3.68 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MFUT | AGZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.63 | 1.65 | +0.98 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.34 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.61 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.01 | 0.69 | -0.70 |
Drawdowns
MFUT vs. AGZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFUT drawdown since its inception was -29.28%, which is greater than AGZ's maximum drawdown of -11.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFUT and AGZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFUT | AGZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.28% | -11.01% | -18.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.23% | -1.35% | -7.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -1.85% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -10.66% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -11.01% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.01% | -0.66% | -0.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.63% | -1.61% | -15.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.85% | 0.40% | +2.45% |
Volatility
MFUT vs. AGZ - Volatility Comparison
Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) has a higher volatility of 3.55% compared to iShares Agency Bond ETF (AGZ) at 0.78%. This indicates that MFUT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MFUT | AGZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.55% | 0.78% | +2.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.65% | 1.93% | +10.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.47% | 2.60% | +11.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.39% | 3.54% | +9.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.39% | 3.03% | +10.36% |
MFUT vs. AGZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFUT has a 1.18% expense ratio, which is higher than AGZ's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFUT vs. AGZ - Dividend Comparison
MFUT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AGZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.72%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AGZ iShares Agency Bond ETF | 3.72% | 3.75% | 3.48% | 3.14% | 1.56% | 0.96% | 2.25% | 2.32% | 2.15% | 1.58% | 1.52% | 1.30% |
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.33% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFUT and AGZ have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MFUT has higher volatility (3.55%) compared to AGZ (0.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFUT dropped -29.28% vs AGZ's -11.01%.
On 1-year performance, MFUT leads with 37.88% vs 4.24% for AGZ. On fees, AGZ is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, AGZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MFUT has performed better with a 37.88% return vs 4.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AGZ is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.18% for MFUT.
AGZ has the higher dividend yield at 3.72%, compared with 0.00% for MFUT.
MFUT is categorized as Systematic Trend, while AGZ is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Cambria and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.18% for MFUT and 0.20% for AGZ.
MFUT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 1.65), 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.
Find the right allocation for MFUT and AGZ
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