MNA vs. GMOM
MNA (IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF) and GMOM (Cambria Global Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MNA is a Hedge Fund fund tracking the IQ Merger Arbitrage Index, while GMOM is a Momentum fund actively managed by Cambria. MNA is passively managed, while GMOM is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, MNA returned 2.70%/yr vs 7.62%/yr for GMOM. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MNA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.96%/yr for GMOM.
Performance
MNA vs. GMOM - Performance Comparison
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%
MNA vs. GMOM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
Utilities
Financial Services
Healthcare
Basic Materials
Communication Services
Technology
Real Estate
Consumer Defensive
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
-
Industrials
MNA
GMOM
Utilities
MNA
GMOM
Financial Services
MNA
GMOM
Healthcare
MNA
GMOM
Basic Materials
MNA
GMOM
Communication Services
MNA
GMOM
Technology
MNA
GMOM
Real Estate
MNA
GMOM
Consumer Defensive
MNA
GMOM
Consumer Cyclical
MNA
GMOM
Energy
MNA
-
GMOM
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
MNA
GMOM
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.
| MNA | GMOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MNA | GMOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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
| MNA | GMOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.90% | -1.85% | +0.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.83% | -7.81% | +4.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth 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
| MNA | GMOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
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