PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MNA vs. GMOM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MNA vs. GMOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNA achieves a 1.42% return, which is significantly lower than GMOM's 11.82% return. Over the past 10 years, MNA has underperformed GMOM with an annualized return of 2.70%, while GMOM has yielded a comparatively higher 7.62% annualized return.


MNA

1D
0.17%
1M
-0.40%
YTD
1.42%
6M
1.42%
1Y
3.74%
3Y*
5.74%
5Y*
1.77%
10Y*
2.70%

GMOM

1D
0.24%
1M
0.47%
YTD
11.82%
6M
13.95%
1Y
29.52%
3Y*
13.91%
5Y*
7.06%
10Y*
7.62%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MNA vs. GMOM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MNA
IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF
1.42%8.59%4.93%0.18%-1.61%-3.24%2.72%4.70%2.13%5.97%
GMOM
Cambria Global Momentum ETF
11.82%20.63%6.75%0.65%-2.82%19.13%2.42%8.24%-9.61%20.67%

Correlation

The correlation between MNA and GMOM is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.34

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.35

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.30

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2014

0.29

MNA vs. GMOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
MNA
GMOM

Industrials

22.3%
16.1%

Utilities

15.3%
11.0%

Financial Services

11.4%
12.0%

Healthcare

11.3%
1.1%

Basic Materials

10.3%
15.6%

Communication Services

9.2%
4.1%

Technology

8.3%
8.4%

Real Estate

5.1%
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

4.4%
3.5%

Consumer Cyclical

2.4%
5.4%

Energy

-

20.7%

Industrials

MNA
22.3%
GMOM
16.1%

Utilities

MNA
15.3%
GMOM
11.0%

Financial Services

MNA
11.4%
GMOM
12.0%

Healthcare

MNA
11.3%
GMOM
1.1%

Basic Materials

MNA
10.3%
GMOM
15.6%

Communication Services

MNA
9.2%
GMOM
4.1%

Technology

MNA
8.3%
GMOM
8.4%

Real Estate

MNA
5.1%
GMOM
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

MNA
4.4%
GMOM
3.5%

Consumer Cyclical

MNA
2.4%
GMOM
5.4%

Energy

MNA

-

GMOM
20.7%

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

MNA vs. GMOM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNA
MNA Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank

GMOM
GMOM Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
GMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
GMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
GMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
GMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
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. GMOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM). 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.


MNAGMOMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.70

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

1.40

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.69

3.10

-0.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.70

12.12

-5.41

MNA vs. GMOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNA Sharpe Ratio is 0.79, which is lower than the GMOM Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNA and GMOM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


MNAGMOMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.79

2.18

-1.38

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

0.49

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.41

0.60

-0.18

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.49

-0.14

Drawdowns

MNA vs. GMOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNA drawdown since its inception was -16.68%, smaller than the maximum GMOM drawdown of -25.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNA and GMOM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MNAGMOMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.68%

-25.03%

+8.35%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.40%

-9.57%

+8.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.01%

-13.73%

+10.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-10.45%

-19.16%

+8.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-16.68%

-25.03%

+8.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.90%

-1.85%

+0.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.83%

-7.81%

+4.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.56%

2.44%

-1.88%

Volatility

MNA vs. GMOM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is 1.79%, while Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM) has a volatility of 3.23%. This indicates that MNA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GMOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MNAGMOMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.79%

3.23%

-1.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.56%

11.18%

-7.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.74%

13.61%

-8.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

4.97%

14.41%

-9.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.55%

12.82%

-6.27%

MNA vs. GMOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MNA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than GMOM's 0.96% expense ratio.


Dividends

MNA vs. GMOM - Dividend Comparison

MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GMOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GMOM
Cambria Global Momentum ETF
1.58%3.01%2.16%3.63%2.52%3.42%1.24%2.60%1.90%2.05%1.77%1.88%
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


MNA and GMOM have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GMOM has higher volatility (3.23%) compared to MNA (1.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNA dropped -16.68% vs GMOM's -25.03%.

On 10-year performance, GMOM leads with 7.62% vs 2.70% for MNA. On fees, MNA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GMOM has performed better with a 7.62% return vs 2.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MNA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for GMOM.

GMOM has the higher dividend yield at 1.58%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

MNA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while GMOM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: New York Life and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for MNA and 0.96% for GMOM.

GMOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 0.79), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MNA and GMOM

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