PRAY vs. SAMT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

PRAY (FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF) and SAMT (Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. PRAY is passively managed, while SAMT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PRAY returned 13.31%/yr vs 23.90%/yr for SAMT. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PRAY charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for SAMT.

Performance

PRAY vs. SAMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) and Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with PRAY having a 12.64% return and SAMT slightly lower at 12.63%.

PRAY

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: 1.10%
• 6M: 8.04%
• YTD: 12.64%
• 1Y: 16.05%
• 3Y*: 13.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.74%

SAMT

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: -5.73%
• 6M: 8.34%
• YTD: 12.63%
• 1Y: 24.28%
• 3Y*: 23.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.23%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	$230.70K	$478.28K	$359.91K
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	$5.05M	$5.51M	$7.81M

PRAY vs. SAMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	12.64%	9.08%	13.02%	20.02%	-12.71%
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	12.63%	33.10%	28.15%	1.27%	-8.96%

Correlation

The correlation between PRAY and SAMT is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2022	0.74

The correlation between PRAY and SAMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

PRAY vs. SAMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PRAY	SAMT
Technology	28.5%	20.4%
Industrials	16.2%	21.8%
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	8.4%
Financial Services	12.5%	4.8%
Communication Services	7.7%	6.0%
Healthcare	7.0%	10.4%
Utilities	3.8%	4.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	15.4%
Energy	3.2%	2.0%
Basic Materials	3.0%	4.2%
Real Estate	1.5%	2.4%

Return for Risk

PRAY vs. SAMT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PRAY

PRAY Risk / Return Rank: 48
PRAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
PRAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
PRAY Omega Ratio Rank: 43
PRAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
PRAY Martin Ratio Rank: 57

SAMT

SAMT Risk / Return Rank: 55
SAMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
SAMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
SAMT Omega Ratio Rank: 51
SAMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
SAMT Martin Ratio Rank: 52

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PRAY vs. SAMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) and Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT). 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.

	PRAY	SAMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	1.29	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	1.82	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.23	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.80	2.33	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.89	6.04	+0.85

PRAY vs. SAMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PRAY Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is comparable to the SAMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PRAY and SAMT, 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

PRAY vs. SAMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PRAY drawdown since its inception was -21.40%, roughly equal to the maximum SAMT drawdown of -20.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PRAY and SAMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	PRAY	SAMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.40%	-20.57%	-0.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.80%	-9.79%	+0.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	-18.27%	+1.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.66%	-9.13%	+6.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.33%	-7.62%	+2.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.30%	3.78%	-1.48%

Volatility

PRAY vs. SAMT - Volatility Comparison

FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) has a higher volatility of 4.62% compared to Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT) at 3.43%. This indicates that PRAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SAMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PRAY	SAMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.62%	3.43%	+1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.20%	14.23%	-2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.20%	17.72%	-3.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.08%	17.11%	-1.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.08%	17.11%	-1.03%

PRAY vs. SAMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

PRAY has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than SAMT's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

PRAY vs. SAMT - Dividend Comparison

PRAY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than SAMT's 0.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	0.61%	0.69%	0.76%	0.83%	1.20%
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	0.62%	0.70%	1.40%	1.49%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PRAY and SAMT in my portfolio?

PRAY and SAMT have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PRAY or SAMT?

PRAY has higher volatility (4.62%) compared to SAMT (3.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PRAY dropped -21.40% vs SAMT's -20.57%.

Which ETF is better, PRAY or SAMT?

On 3-year performance, SAMT leads with 23.90% vs 13.31% for PRAY. On fees, SAMT is cheaper at 0.66% per year. On volatility, SAMT has been the lower-risk option at 3.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PRAY or SAMT?

Over the 3-year period, SAMT has performed better with a 23.90% return vs 13.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PRAY or SAMT?

SAMT is cheaper with a 0.66% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for PRAY.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PRAY or SAMT?

PRAY and SAMT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.61%.

What is the main difference between PRAY and SAMT?

They also come from different issuers: Faith Investor Services and Strategas. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for PRAY and 0.66% for SAMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SAMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 1.12), 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.