MFUT vs. FBDC
MFUT (Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF) and FBDC (FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Cambria, while FBDC is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. MFUT charges 1.18%/yr vs 1.35%/yr for FBDC.
Performance
MFUT vs. FBDC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFUT achieves a 21.83% return, which is significantly higher than FBDC's -6.73% return.
MFUT
- 1D
- 0.68%
- 1M
- 4.73%
- YTD
- 21.83%
- 6M
- 25.28%
- 1Y
- 37.88%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FBDC
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- -4.81%
- YTD
- -6.73%
- 6M
- -6.36%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MFUT vs. FBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF | 21.83% | 11.22% |
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | -6.73% | -2.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFUT and FBDC is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025 | -0.00 |
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. FBDC — Risk / Return Rank
MFUT
FBDC
MFUT vs. FBDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). 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 | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.63 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.21 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.52 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.14 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.41 | — | — |
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 | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.63 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.01 | -0.55 | +0.53 |
Drawdowns
MFUT vs. FBDC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFUT drawdown since its inception was -29.28%, which is greater than FBDC's maximum drawdown of -20.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFUT and FBDC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFUT | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.28% | -20.60% | -8.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.23% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.01% | -14.70% | +13.69% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.63% | -10.11% | -6.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.85% | — | — |
Volatility
MFUT vs. FBDC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MFUT | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.55% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.65% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.47% | 17.83% | -3.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.39% | 17.83% | -4.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.39% | 17.83% | -4.44% |
MFUT vs. FBDC - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFUT has a 1.18% expense ratio, which is lower than FBDC's 1.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFUT vs. FBDC - Dividend Comparison
MFUT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.18%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | 11.18% | 5.41% | 0.00% |
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.33% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFUT and FBDC have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MFUT is cheaper at 1.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MFUT is cheaper with a 1.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.
FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 11.18%, compared with 0.00% for MFUT.
MFUT is categorized as Systematic Trend, while FBDC is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Cambria and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 1.18% for MFUT and 1.35% for FBDC.
Find the right allocation for MFUT and FBDC
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