MNA vs. GDMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MNA (IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both Hedge Fund funds. MNA is passively managed, while GDMA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MNA returned 1.74%/yr vs 7.66%/yr for GDMA. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.77% expense ratio.

Performance

MNA vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNA achieves a 1.26% return, which is significantly lower than GDMA's 11.18% return.

MNA

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -0.11%
• YTD: 1.26%
• 6M: 1.17%
• 1Y: 3.69%
• 3Y*: 5.62%
• 5Y*: 1.74%
• 10Y*: 2.67%

GDMA

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 1.83%
• YTD: 11.18%
• 6M: 14.08%
• 1Y: 32.26%
• 3Y*: 16.91%
• 5Y*: 7.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

MNA vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF	1.26%	8.59%	4.93%	0.18%	-1.61%	-3.24%	2.72%	4.70%	-0.97%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	11.18%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	3.95%	21.08%	11.59%	-3.93%

Correlation

The correlation between MNA and GDMA is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2018	0.20

The correlation between MNA and GDMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (5 years) to 0.27 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MNA vs. GDMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MNA	GDMA
Industrials	22.3%	14.4%
Utilities	15.3%	2.4%
Financial Services	11.4%	14.5%
Healthcare	11.3%	5.5%
Basic Materials	10.3%	9.0%
Communication Services	9.2%	7.0%
Technology	8.3%	23.4%
Real Estate	5.1%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	3.5%
Consumer Cyclical	2.4%	8.8%
Energy	-	10.0%

Return for Risk

MNA vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNA

MNA Risk / Return Rank: 32
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 21
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 41

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 74
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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.

	MNA	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.78	2.47	-1.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.17	3.21	-2.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.47	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	4.30	-1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.64	11.92	-5.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MNA vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNA Sharpe Ratio is 0.78, which is lower than the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNA and GDMA, 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

	MNA	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78	2.47	-1.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35	0.80	-0.45
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.89	-0.53

Drawdowns

MNA vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNA drawdown since its inception was -16.68%, roughly equal to the maximum GDMA drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNA and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MNA	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.68%	-16.66%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.40%	-7.53%	+6.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.01%	-7.53%	+4.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.45%	-12.74%	+2.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-16.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.06%	-1.06%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.83%	-3.78%	+0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.56%	2.71%	-2.15%

Volatility

MNA vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is 1.85%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that MNA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MNA	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.85%	6.18%	-4.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.56%	10.03%	-6.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.74%	13.12%	-8.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.99%	9.67%	-4.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.55%	10.97%	-4.42%

MNA vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MNA and GDMA have an expense ratio of 0.77%.

Dividends

MNA vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.51%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%	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 GDMA in my portfolio?

MNA and GDMA have a correlation of 0.26, 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 GDMA?

GDMA has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to MNA (1.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNA dropped -16.68% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, MNA or GDMA?

On 5-year performance, GDMA leads with 7.66% vs 1.74% for MNA. Both ETFs have the same 0.77% expense ratio. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MNA or GDMA?

Over the 5-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 7.66% return vs 1.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MNA or GDMA?

MNA and GDMA have the same expense ratio: 0.77% per year.

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

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

What is the main difference between MNA and GDMA?

They also come from different issuers: New York Life and Gadsden.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 0.78), 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.