IVV vs MFUT
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. MFUT delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | MFUT | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.89% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $41M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.00% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 143 | |
| YTD Return | +13.43% | +16.82% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.61% | +31.45% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.47% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.26% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 14.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -29.3% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Cambria Investment Management | |
| Category | Equity | Allocation/Balanced | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | May 29, 2024 |
IVV vs MFUT Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) is a ETF from Cambria Investment Management. Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% while MFUT returned +31.45%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.43% versus a gain of 16.82% for MFUT.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 14.6% for MFUT. 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 -56.5% for IVV and -29.3% for MFUT. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.48. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while MFUT charges 0.89%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $89 annually, a gap of $86 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.00% for MFUT.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and MFUT share 42 holdings out of 526 unique holdings combined, representing a 10.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or MFUT?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while MFUT charges 0.89%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $86 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or MFUT?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.61% vs +31.45% for MFUT, so MFUT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IVV annualized +7.03% vs -1.46% for MFUT. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or MFUT?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 14.6% for MFUT. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs MFUT -29.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and MFUT?
IVV and MFUT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.48, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and MFUT?
IVV and MFUT share 42 common holdings with a 10.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 526 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or MFUT?
IVV yields 1.09% while MFUT yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.