AMOM vs GQGU
Qraft AI-Enhanced US Large Cap Momentum ETF vs GQG US Equity ETF
Which is better, AMOM or GQGU?
AMOM has been ahead.
GQGU has a lower expense ratio. AMOM led over 1Y and the full window. AMOM is less concentrated, with 36.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.4%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AMOM | GQGU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.49%Best |
| AUM | $23M | $506M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.00% |
| Holdings | 102 | 72 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 26.3% | 12.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.0% | -8.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $12,390Best | $10,111 |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.9%Best | 49.4% |
| Fund Family | QRAFT AI ETFs | GQG Partners LLC |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 20, 2019 | Jul 31, 2019 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 26 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. AMOM has data through Oct 16, 2026 and GQGU through Nov 11, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 14, 2025 to Oct 16, 2026 (1.3 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AMOM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 26.3% compared with 12.6% for GQGU. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -18.0% for AMOM and -8.6% for GQGU. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.06. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AMOM charges 0.75% per year while GQGU charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $49 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AMOM currently yields 0.00% against 1.00% for GQGU.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 50 holdings in AMOM and 33 in GQGU, totalling 99.5% and 95.8% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in AMOM and 33 in GQGU, against full books of 102 and 72.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 32 positions for GQGU that do not appear in our book for AMOM (92.4% of the fund), and 50 for AMOM that do not appear in GQGU (99.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of AMOM and GQGU you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AMOM or GQGU?
AMOM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while GQGU charges 0.49%. GQGU is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, AMOM or GQGU?
AMOM has been the more volatile fund at 26.3% annualized versus 12.6% for GQGU. Worst drawdown: AMOM -18.0% vs GQGU -8.6%.
Should I hold both AMOM and GQGU?
AMOM and GQGU have a monthly-return correlation of -0.06, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, AMOM or GQGU?
AMOM yields 0.00% while GQGU yields 1.00%, so GQGU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GQGU better than AMOM?
GQGU has a lower expense ratio. AMOM led over 1Y and the full window. AMOM is less concentrated, with 36.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.