SAMT vs. PRAY

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

SAMT (Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF) and PRAY (FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. SAMT is actively managed, while PRAY is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, SAMT returned 27.93%/yr vs 16.00%/yr for PRAY. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SAMT charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for PRAY.

Performance

SAMT vs. PRAY - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SAMT achieves a 19.97% return, which is significantly higher than PRAY's 14.34% return.

SAMT

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 0.96%
• YTD: 19.97%
• 6M: 17.75%
• 1Y: 39.83%
• 3Y*: 27.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PRAY

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 14.34%
• 6M: 13.57%
• 1Y: 20.62%
• 3Y*: 16.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SAMT vs. PRAY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	19.97%	33.10%	28.15%	1.27%	-8.96%
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	14.34%	9.08%	13.02%	20.02%	-12.71%

Correlation

The correlation between SAMT and PRAY is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2022	0.75

The correlation between SAMT and PRAY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

SAMT vs. PRAY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SAMT	PRAY
Technology	25.0%	29.0%
Industrials	23.3%	14.8%
Consumer Defensive	12.1%	3.7%
Healthcare	7.5%	7.0%
Utilities	6.9%	3.7%
Consumer Cyclical	5.8%	13.1%
Communication Services	5.7%	8.3%
Financial Services	5.4%	12.4%
Real Estate	2.8%	1.5%
Energy	2.8%	3.5%
Basic Materials	2.7%	3.2%

Return for Risk

SAMT vs. PRAY — Risk / Return Rank

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

SAMT

SAMT Risk / Return Rank: 74
SAMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
SAMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
SAMT Omega Ratio Rank: 67
SAMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
SAMT Martin Ratio Rank: 73

PRAY

PRAY Risk / Return Rank: 49
PRAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
PRAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
PRAY Omega Ratio Rank: 43
PRAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
PRAY Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

SAMT vs. PRAY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	SAMT	PRAY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	1.54	+0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	2.28	+0.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.27	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.91	2.35	+2.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.25	10.07	+3.18

SAMT vs. PRAY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SAMT Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is higher than the PRAY Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SAMT and PRAY, 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

SAMT vs. PRAY - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	SAMT	PRAY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.57%	-21.40%	+0.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.15%	-8.80%	+0.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.27%	-17.13%	-1.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.92%	-1.19%	+0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.66%	-5.38%	-2.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.01%	2.05%	+0.96%

Volatility

SAMT vs. PRAY - Volatility Comparison

Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF (SAMT) has a higher volatility of 6.82% compared to FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF (PRAY) at 5.30%. This indicates that SAMT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PRAY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SAMT	PRAY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.82%	5.30%	+1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.57%	11.43%	+2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.52%	13.50%	+4.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.07%	16.08%	+0.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.07%	16.08%	+0.99%

SAMT vs. PRAY - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

SAMT vs. PRAY - Dividend Comparison

SAMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than PRAY's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
PRAY FIS Biblically Responsible Risk Managed ETF	0.60%	0.69%	0.76%	0.83%	1.20%
SAMT Strategas Macro Thematic Opportunities ETF	0.58%	0.70%	1.40%	1.49%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SAMT and PRAY in my portfolio?

SAMT and PRAY have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SAMT or PRAY?

SAMT has higher volatility (6.82%) compared to PRAY (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SAMT dropped -20.57% vs PRAY's -21.40%.

Which ETF is better, SAMT or PRAY?

On 3-year performance, SAMT leads with 27.93% vs 16.00% for PRAY. On fees, SAMT is cheaper at 0.66% per year. On volatility, PRAY has been the lower-risk option at 5.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SAMT or PRAY?

Over the 3-year period, SAMT has performed better with a 27.93% return vs 16.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SAMT or PRAY?

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

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

PRAY has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.58% for SAMT.

What is the main difference between SAMT and PRAY?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SAMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.54), 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.