MTUM vs QVAL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MTUM and QVAL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MTUM is iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF, while QVAL is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF. MTUM is broader by holdings count, with 128 positions versus 52 for QVAL. MTUM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QVAL ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 52.
What is the main difference between MTUM and QVAL?
MTUM puts 52% of its assets in Information Technology, while QVAL spreads across 9 sectors with none above 27%.
| Metric | MTUM | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.28% |
| Holdings | 128 | 52 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.6% | 23.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.73% | 1.4% |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 49,819 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +2% | +35% |
| YTD return | +1.9% | +28.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.9% | +12.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 14.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -6.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.1% | -27.1% |
| Beta | 1.67 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 3.81 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 23/100 | 63/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 42/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF vs Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF
QVAL leads
QVAL leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QVAL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QVAL over MTUM, 57 versus 52 as of Nov 7, 2026. QVAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while MTUM holds the stronger quality profile. QVAL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QVAL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. QVAL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MTUM vs QVAL: 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 | QVAL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.28% | MTUM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 128 | 52 | MTUM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.6% | 23.7% | QVAL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.73% | 1.4% | QVAL |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.1% | -27.1% | QVAL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 14.5% | QVAL |
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 QVAL 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.
- Momentum23 vs 63QVAL +40
- Risk Resilience42 vs 68QVAL +26
- Quality61 vs 40MTUM +21
- Value72 vs 62MTUM +10
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QVAL. QVAL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; MTUM keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum -4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
QVAL's lead narrowed by 13 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTUM and QVAL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QVAL (Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF): the counter-case, on quality, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 41.6% against 18.7%.
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 | QVAL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.28% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 128 | 52 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 49,819 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 14.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -6.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 1.93 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.67 | 0.54 | 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 QVAL share 2.16% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings.
119 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 45 holdings are unique to QVAL. 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 23.66% for QVAL (128 holdings vs 52). 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 | QVAL | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 1.11% | 2.2% | 1.11% |
| COPConocoPhillips | 0.64% | 2.16% | 0.64% |
| HPQHP Inc | 0.15% | 1.96% | 0.15% |
| CFCF Industries Holdings Inc | 0.11% | 1.93% | 0.11% |
| UTHRUnited Therapeutics Corp | 0.08% | 1.86% | 0.08% |
| DALDelta Air Lines Inc | 0.07% | 1.79% | 0.07% |
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 QVAL doesn’t
| Holding | MTUM | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| 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 QVAL adds that MTUM doesn’t
| Holding | QVAL | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 2.94% | Not held |
| HLHecla Mining Co | 2.76% | Not held |
| NEMNewmont Corp | 2.74% | Not held |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 2.27% | Not held |
| APAAPA Corp | 2.26% | Not held |
| COPConocoPhillips | 2.16% | 0.64% |
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 QVAL: five-year payout growth
MTUM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.14% a year against QVAL's 6.14%. 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. QVAL: The 2020 payout was 13.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | MTUM | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.14% | 6.14% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.340 | $0.522 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.273 | $0.703 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #50 of 138 | #85 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 QVAL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QVAL | 52 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MTUM | Value 72 vs 62 |
| Technicals | QVAL | Price vs 50-day -15.8% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day -11.5% vs 10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | QVAL | Risk Resilience 42 vs 68 |
| 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 QVAL 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 QVAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QVAL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QVAL +5
- 52 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- QVAL +19
- 42 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- QVAL +17
- 44 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- QVAL +13
- 46 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when MTUM moved ahead of QVAL.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QVAL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QVAL 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 down over the latest session (price -1.07%, 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.
- 1MTUM closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to QVAL's edge.
- 2MTUM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QVAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate QVAL'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
QVAL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MTUM | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.6% | 3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.9% | 15.2% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 28.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2% | 35% |
Technicals
QVAL has the stronger structure| Metric | MTUM | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 52.4 |
| ADX (14) | 36.6 | 40.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.5% | 10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 18.7% |
Risk
QVAL is the more resilient| Metric | MTUM | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 3.81 |
| Max drawdown | -27.5% | -6.7% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 14.5% |
| 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 QVAL?
MTUM puts 52% of its assets in Information Technology, while QVAL spreads across 9 sectors with none above 27%.
How much do MTUM and QVAL overlap?
MTUM and QVAL share 2.16% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings. 119 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 45 holdings are unique to QVAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, MTUM or QVAL?
MTUM holds more positions: 128 versus 52 for QVAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MTUM has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.28% for QVAL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QVAL, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.4% against 0.73% for MTUM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MTUM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 14.5% for QVAL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QVAL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -27.1% against -32.1% for MTUM.
Compare MTUM and QVAL 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.