MTUM vs QUAL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MTUM and QUAL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MTUM is iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF, while QUAL is iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF. QUAL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QUAL ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 52.
What is the main difference between MTUM and QUAL?
MTUM puts 52% of its assets in Information Technology, while QUAL spreads across 11 sectors with none above 37%.
| Metric | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 128 | 121 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.6% | 44.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.73% | 0.86% |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 4,268,662 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +2% | +12.3% |
| YTD return | +1.9% | +10.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.9% | +9.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 12.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.1% | -28.2% |
| Beta | 1.67 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 1.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 23/100 | 37/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 42/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
QUAL leads
QUAL leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QUAL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QUAL over MTUM, 61 versus 52 as of Nov 7, 2026. QUAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. QUAL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QUAL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QUAL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MTUM vs QUAL: 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 | QUAL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 128 | 121 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.6% | 44.5% | MTUM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.73% | 0.86% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.1% | -28.2% | QUAL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 12.6% | QUAL |
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 QUAL 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.
- Risk Resilience42 vs 78QUAL +36
- Momentum23 vs 37QUAL +14
- Quality61 vs 63Even
- Value72 vs 72Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QUAL. QUAL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +38
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QUAL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTUM and QUAL both carry a full feed there.
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 | QUAL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 128 | 121 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 4,268,662 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 12.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.76 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.67 | 0.87 | 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 QUAL share 22.38% of their weighted exposure across 27 common holdings.
98 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 91 holdings are unique to QUAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QUAL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 44.53% of the fund, against 35.64% for MTUM (121 holdings vs 128). 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 | QUAL | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 2.9% | 2.88% | 2.88% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 2.4% | 3.79% | 2.4% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.62% | 2.32% | 2.32% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.32% | 2.16% | 2.16% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.62% | 1.92% | 1.92% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 2.08% | 1.51% | 1.51% |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 1.83% | 1.42% | 1.42% |
| KLACKLA | 1.2% | 2.49% | 1.2% |
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 QUAL doesn’t
| Holding | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| SNDKSANDISK | 3.17% | Not held |
| STXSEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC | 2.37% | Not held |
What QUAL adds that MTUM doesn’t
| Holding | QUAL | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 7.62% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.83% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 6.56% | Not held |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 4.36% | Not held |
| LLYELI LILLY | 3.61% | Not held |
| TJXTJX | 3.21% | 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 QUAL: five-year payout growth
MTUM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.14% a year against QUAL's 2.85%. 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.
| Dividend metric | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.14% | 2.85% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.340 | $1.615 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.273 | $1.859 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #50 of 138 | #117 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QUAL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QUAL | 52 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 72 vs 72 |
| Technicals | QUAL | Price vs 50-day -15.8% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -11.5% vs 3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QUAL | Risk Resilience 42 vs 78 |
| 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 QUAL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 QUAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QUAL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QUAL +9
- 52 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- QUAL +8
- 42 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QUAL +16
- 44 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- QUAL +10
- 46 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 25 when QUAL moved ahead of MTUM.
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
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QUAL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.16%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QUAL 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, AIQ +11 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.
- 1MTUM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to QUAL's edge.
- 2MTUM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QUAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate QUAL's advantage entirely.
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
QUAL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.6% | -3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.9% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2% | 12.3% |
Technicals
QUAL has the stronger structure| Metric | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 36.6 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.5% | 3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 16.6% |
Risk
QUAL is the more resilient| Metric | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -27.5% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -3.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 12.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between MTUM and QUAL?
MTUM puts 52% of its assets in Information Technology, while QUAL spreads across 11 sectors with none above 37%.
How much do MTUM and QUAL overlap?
MTUM and QUAL share 22.38% of their weighted exposure across 27 common holdings. 98 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 91 holdings are unique to QUAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, MTUM or QUAL?
They hold a similar number of positions: 128 for MTUM and 121 for QUAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.15% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.73% for MTUM and 0.86% for QUAL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MTUM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 12.6% for QUAL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QUAL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.2% against -32.1% for MTUM.
Compare MTUM and QUAL 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.