MFUT vs QQQ
Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. MFUT delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFUT offers more diversification with 143 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MFUT | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.89% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $63M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 143 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +17.22% | +16.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +31.28% | +26.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +25.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.78% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -29.3% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Cambria Investment Management | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | May 29, 2024 | Mar 10, 1999 |
MFUT vs QQQ Performance
Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) is a ETF from Cambria Investment Management and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year MFUT returned +31.28% while QQQ returned +26.23%. Year to date, MFUT is up 17.22% versus a gain of 16.23% for QQQ.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% 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 -29.3% for MFUT and -83.0% for QQQ. 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 0.34. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MFUT charges 0.89% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $89 vs $18 annually, a gap of $71 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MFUT currently yields 0.00% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
MFUT and QQQ share 15 holdings out of 150 unique holdings combined, representing a 9.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, MFUT or QQQ?
MFUT has an expense ratio of 0.89% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $71 per year of difference.
Which performed better, MFUT or QQQ?
Over the past year MFUT returned +31.28% vs +26.23% for QQQ, so MFUT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), MFUT annualized -1.29% vs +13.02% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, MFUT or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 14.6% for MFUT. Worst drawdown: MFUT -29.3% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both MFUT and QQQ?
MFUT and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.34, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between MFUT and QQQ?
MFUT and QQQ share 15 common holdings with a 9.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 150 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, MFUT or QQQ?
MFUT yields 0.00% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so QQQ 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.