MNA vs. CTA

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

MNA (IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF) and CTA (Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MNA is a Hedge Fund fund tracking the IQ Merger Arbitrage Index, while CTA is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Simplify. MNA is passively managed, while CTA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MNA returned 5.66%/yr vs 6.30%/yr for CTA. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. MNA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.78%/yr for CTA.

Performance

MNA vs. CTA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNA achieves a 2.27% return, which is significantly higher than CTA's -2.31% return.

MNA

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.50%
• 6M: 1.98%
• YTD: 2.27%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: 5.66%
• 5Y*: 2.11%
• 10Y*: 2.98%

CTA

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: -9.06%
• 6M: -4.35%
• YTD: -2.31%
• 1Y: -2.73%
• 3Y*: 6.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MNA vs. CTA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF	2.27%	8.59%	4.93%	0.18%	0.67%
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	-2.31%	0.88%	24.15%	-2.23%	9.01%

Correlation

The correlation between MNA and CTA is -0.05, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2022	-0.07

Return for Risk

MNA vs. CTA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNA

MNA Risk / Return Rank: 38
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 24
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 48

CTA

CTA Risk / Return Rank: 9
CTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
CTA Omega Ratio Rank: 8
CTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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.

MNA vs. CTA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA). 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.

	MNA	CTA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	-0.07	+0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.15	0.05	+1.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.01	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	-0.07	+2.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.32	-0.20	+6.53

MNA vs. CTA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNA Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is higher than the CTA Sharpe Ratio of -0.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNA and CTA, 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

MNA vs. CTA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNA drawdown since its inception was -16.68%, smaller than the maximum CTA drawdown of -20.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNA and CTA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MNA	CTA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.68%	-20.44%	+3.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.40%	-20.44%	+19.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.01%	-20.44%	+17.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.73%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-16.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.07%	-19.85%	+19.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.82%	-5.92%	+3.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	6.67%	-6.09%

Volatility

MNA vs. CTA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is 1.29%, while Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) has a volatility of 4.27%. This indicates that MNA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CTA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MNA	CTA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.29%	4.27%	-2.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.61%	17.73%	-14.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.80%	20.44%	-15.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.98%	16.59%	-11.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.52%	16.59%	-10.07%

MNA vs. CTA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MNA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than CTA's 0.78% expense ratio.

Dividends

MNA vs. CTA - Dividend Comparison

MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.14%	3.19%	4.80%	7.78%	6.58%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.20%	0.00%	0.00%	2.30%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%	0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MNA and CTA in my portfolio?

MNA and CTA have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MNA or CTA?

CTA has higher volatility (4.27%) compared to MNA (1.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNA dropped -16.68% vs CTA's -20.44%.

Which ETF is better, MNA or CTA?

On 3-year performance, CTA leads with 6.30% vs 5.66% for MNA. On fees, MNA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MNA or CTA?

Over the 3-year period, CTA has performed better with a 6.30% return vs 5.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MNA or CTA?

MNA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for CTA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MNA or CTA?

CTA has the higher dividend yield at 5.14%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

What is the main difference between MNA and CTA?

MNA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while CTA is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: New York Life and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for MNA and 0.78% for CTA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MNA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.77 vs -0.07), 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.