MTUM vs QMOM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MTUM and QMOM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MTUM is iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF, while QMOM is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF. MTUM is broader by holdings count, with 128 positions versus 51 for QMOM. MTUM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has MTUM ahead on AIQ Score, 52 versus 37.
What is the main difference between MTUM and QMOM?
MTUM puts 52% of its assets in Information Technology, while QMOM spreads across 8 sectors with none above 25%.
| Metric | MTUM | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.28% |
| Holdings | 128 | 51 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.6% | 22.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.73% | 0.54% |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 20,987 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +2% | -0.9% |
| YTD return | +1.9% | +0.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.9% | +4.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 26.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -19.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.1% | -26.8% |
| Beta | 1.67 | 1.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 0.01 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 37/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 23/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 42/100 | 57/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF vs Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
MTUM leads
MTUM leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support MTUM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTUM over QMOM, 52 versus 37 as of Nov 7, 2026. MTUM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while QMOM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MTUM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MTUM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. MTUM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MTUM vs QMOM: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | MTUM | QMOM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.28% | MTUM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 128 | 51 | MTUM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.6% | 22.6% | QMOM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.73% | 0.54% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.1% | -26.8% | QMOM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 26.9% | QMOM |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare MTUM and QMOM against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value72 vs 41MTUM +31
- Quality61 vs 34MTUM +27
- Risk Resilience42 vs 57QMOM +15
- Momentum23 vs 24Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor MTUM. MTUM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; QMOM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +40
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
MTUM's lead widened by 11 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTUM and QMOM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
QMOM (Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | MTUM | QMOM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.28% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 128 | 51 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 20,987 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 26.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -19.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.01 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.67 | 1.51 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
MTUM and QMOM share 14.11% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings.
104 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 29 holdings are unique to QMOM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
MTUM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 35.64% of the fund, against 22.57% for QMOM (128 holdings vs 51). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | MTUM | QMOM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 2.13% | 2.1% | 2.1% |
| DELLDell Technologies Inc | 1.95% | 2.62% | 1.95% |
| PANWPALO ALTO NETWORKS | 2.33% | 1.84% | 1.84% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 1.37% | 1.93% | 1.37% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 1.11% | 2.09% | 1.11% |
| VLOValero Energy Corp | 1.08% | 2.15% | 1.08% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 0.86% | 1.93% | 0.86% |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 0.85% | 2.45% | 0.85% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What MTUM adds that QMOM doesn’t
| Holding | MTUM | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 5.46% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 5.37% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 4.3% | Not held |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 3.47% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.32% | Not held |
| SNDKSANDISK | 3.17% | Not held |
What QMOM adds that MTUM doesn’t
| Holding | QMOM | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 2.45% | 0.85% |
| ROIVRoivant Sciences Ltd | 2.36% | 0.2% |
| ARWArrow Electronics Inc | 2.23% | Not held |
| VIAVViavi Solutions Inc | 2.22% | Not held |
| SNXTD SYNNEX Corp | 2.15% | Not held |
| KGSKodiak Gas Services Inc | 2.13% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
MTUM vs QMOM: five-year payout growth
QMOM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 51.47% a year against MTUM's 11.14%. MTUM: The 2020 payout was 27.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. MTUM: The payout jumped 162.8% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. QMOM: The payout jumped 1064.5% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. QMOM: A single payment in an endpoint year was 13.5x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | MTUM | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.14% | 51.47% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.340 | $0.044 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.273 | $0.354 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #50 of 138 | #11 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MTUM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTUM | 52 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MTUM | Value 72 vs 41 |
| Technicals | QMOM | Price vs 50-day -15.8% vs -9%; vs 200-day -11.5% vs -10.3% |
| Risk Resilience | QMOM | Risk Resilience 42 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTUM and QMOM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on MTUM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6MTUM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTUM +15
- 52 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- MTUM +3
- 42 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- MTUM +2
- 44 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- MTUM +7
- 46 vs 39
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MTUM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.28%)
2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only QMOM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.05%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: BB Lower Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MTUM leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.85%, AIQ +12 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.69%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1QMOM closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTUM's edge.
- 2QMOM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MTUM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MTUM | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -7.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.6% | -9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | -11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.9% | -13.9% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 0.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2% | -0.9% |
Technicals
QMOM has the stronger structure| Metric | MTUM | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 29.4 |
| ADX (14) | 36.6 | 29.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | -9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.5% | -10.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 27.7% |
Risk
QMOM is the more resilient| Metric | MTUM | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 1.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -27.5% | -19.9% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -19.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 26.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between MTUM and QMOM?
MTUM puts 52% of its assets in Information Technology, while QMOM spreads across 8 sectors with none above 25%.
How much do MTUM and QMOM overlap?
MTUM and QMOM share 14.11% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings. 104 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 29 holdings are unique to QMOM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, MTUM or QMOM?
MTUM holds more positions: 128 versus 51 for QMOM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MTUM has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.28% for QMOM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.73% for MTUM and 0.54% for QMOM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MTUM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 26.9% for QMOM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QMOM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.8% against -32.1% for MTUM.
Compare MTUM and QMOM with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.