MFUT vs. ISMF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

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

Performance

MFUT vs. ISMF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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

MFUT

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

ISMF

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

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

MFUT vs. ISMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

The correlation between MFUT and ISMF 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

MFUT vs. ISMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

MFUT vs. ISMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) and iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF). 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	ISMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	2.71	-0.08
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.21	3.69	-0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.57	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.14	5.46	-1.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.41	18.89	-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.

MFUT vs. ISMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

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

Drawdowns

MFUT vs. ISMF - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

MFUT vs. ISMF - Volatility Comparison

Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) has a higher volatility of 3.55% compared to iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) at 1.72%. This indicates that MFUT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

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

MFUT vs. ISMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MFUT vs. ISMF - Dividend Comparison

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

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 MFUT and ISMF in my portfolio?

MFUT and ISMF 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, MFUT or ISMF?

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

Which ETF is better, MFUT or ISMF?

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, MFUT or ISMF?

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, MFUT or ISMF?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between MFUT and ISMF?

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

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.