MFUT vs. VFMF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MFUT (Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF) and VFMF (Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Cambria, while VFMF is a Multi-factor fund actively managed by Vanguard. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MFUT returned 28.61% vs 34.79% for VFMF. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MFUT charges 1.18%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for VFMF.

Performance

MFUT vs. VFMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) and Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF (VFMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFUT achieves a 13.81% return, which is significantly lower than VFMF's 16.88% return.

MFUT

• 1D: -2.52%
• 1M: -4.70%
• YTD: 13.81%
• 6M: 12.83%
• 1Y: 28.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

VFMF

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 2.80%
• YTD: 16.88%
• 6M: 15.26%
• 1Y: 34.79%
• 3Y*: 22.47%
• 5Y*: 14.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

MFUT vs. VFMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF	13.81%	-1.83%	-16.64%
VFMF Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF	16.88%	17.38%	6.77%

Correlation

The correlation between MFUT and VFMF is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2024	0.27

Return for Risk

MFUT vs. VFMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFUT

MFUT Risk / Return Rank: 61
MFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
MFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
MFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 68
MFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
MFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 57

VFMF

VFMF Risk / Return Rank: 86
VFMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
VFMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
VFMF Omega Ratio Rank: 82
VFMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
VFMF Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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. VFMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) and Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF (VFMF). 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.

	MFUT	VFMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	2.65	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	3.78	-1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.46	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	4.94	-1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.35	18.56	-9.21

MFUT vs. VFMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFUT Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is comparable to the VFMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFUT and VFMF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

MFUT vs. VFMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFUT drawdown since its inception was -29.28%, smaller than the maximum VFMF drawdown of -41.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFUT and VFMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFUT	VFMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.28%	-41.34%	+12.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.23%	-7.08%	-2.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.57%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.57%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.52%	-0.78%	-6.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.28%	-5.71%	-10.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.07%	1.88%	+1.19%

Volatility

MFUT vs. VFMF - Volatility Comparison

Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) has a higher volatility of 4.28% compared to Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF (VFMF) at 3.56%. This indicates that MFUT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFUT	VFMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.28%	3.56%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.11%	9.31%	+3.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.05%	13.25%	+1.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.49%	18.06%	-4.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.49%	21.11%	-7.62%

MFUT vs. VFMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFUT has a 1.18% expense ratio, which is higher than VFMF's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFUT vs. VFMF - Dividend Comparison

MFUT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while VFMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VFMF Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF	1.00%	1.54%	1.60%	1.78%	2.21%	1.39%	1.56%	1.61%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MFUT and VFMF in my portfolio?

MFUT and VFMF have a correlation of 0.22, 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 VFMF?

MFUT has higher volatility (4.28%) compared to VFMF (3.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFUT dropped -29.28% vs VFMF's -41.34%.

Which ETF is better, MFUT or VFMF?

On 1-year performance, VFMF leads with 34.79% vs 28.61% for MFUT. On fees, VFMF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, VFMF has been the lower-risk option at 3.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFUT or VFMF?

Over the 1-year period, VFMF has performed better with a 34.79% return vs 28.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFUT or VFMF?

VFMF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.18% for MFUT.

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

VFMF has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.00% for MFUT.

What is the main difference between MFUT and VFMF?

MFUT is categorized as Systematic Trend, while VFMF is Multi-factor. They also come from different issuers: Cambria and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 1.18% for MFUT and 0.18% for VFMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

VFMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 1.91), 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.