MTUM.USvsQQQ.US

10-Year Study

The Verdict

Over the synchronized 10-year period measured, neither historically led across 11 distinct risk and return vectors.
MTUM.US generated a 10-year CAGR of 16.9% (Max Drawdown: 30.2%), while QQQ.US generated 21.2% (Max Drawdown: 32.6%).

MTUM.US
5
metric wins
16.9% CAGR
VS
QQQ.US
6
metric wins
21.2% CAGR
Tied — very close race

Head-to-Head StatisticsiDetailed side-by-side breakdown of return and risk metrics.

10Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
+16.9%
VS
QQQ.US
+21.2%
5Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
+15.0%
VS
QQQ.US
+15.6%
3Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
+32.9%
VS
QQQ.US
+24.9%
1Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
+41.0%
VS
QQQ.US
+31.1%
Max DrawdownMax DrawdownThe largest peak-to-trough decline in the asset's value over the measurement period.Click for full definition →
lower is better
MTUM.US
-30.2%
VS
QQQ.US
-32.6%
Sharpe RatioSharpe RatioRisk-adjusted return: how much excess return you earn per unit of total risk (volatility).Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
0.83
VS
QQQ.US
1.00
Sortino RatioSortino RatioLike Sharpe, but only penalizes downside volatility — a more accurate risk measure for asymmetric return distributions.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
1.32
VS
QQQ.US
1.61
Ann. VolatilityAnnualized VolatilityThe annualized standard deviation of an asset's returns — a measure of how much prices fluctuate.Click for full definition →
lower is better
MTUM.US
+17.4%
VS
QQQ.US
+18.9%
% Positive Years% Positive YearsThe percentage of calendar years in the measurement period where the asset delivered a positive return.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
+80.0%
VS
QQQ.US
+80.0%
Dividend YieldDividend YieldAnnual dividend paid per share divided by the current share price — expressed as a percentage income return.Click for full definition →
MTUM.US
+82.0%
VS
QQQ.US
+0.4%
10Y Income ($10k)
MTUM.US
$0
VS
QQQ.US
$74
BetaBetaA measure of an asset's sensitivity to broad market movements relative to a benchmark (e.g. S&P 500).Click for full definition →
lower = less market sensitivity
MTUM.US
1.15
VS
QQQ.US
1.23

MTUM.US vs QQQ.US: In-Depth AnalysisiData-driven narrative breakdown of volatility, sector exposure, and income characteristics.

Volatility & Variance: Reading the Risk Fingerprint

MTUM.US (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF) carries an annualised volatility of 17.4%, categorised as moderate relative to the long-run US equity benchmark of approximately 15%. QQQ.US (Invesco QQQ Trust) registers at 18.9%, a elevated reading by the same standard.

QQQ.US is marginally more volatile than MTUM.US by 1.5% annualised. For most US long-term investors this difference is unlikely to be psychologically meaningful, though it will compound over multi-decade holding periods.

On the downside, MTUM.US's maximum peak-to-trough drawdown of 30.2% represents a severe bear-market drawdown over the study period. QQQ.US's worst drawdown of 32.6% was a severe bear-market drawdown. MTUM.US demonstrated stronger capital preservation during the period's worst stress events, which is particularly relevant for US investors approaching retirement or drawing down a portfolio.

When evaluating these two funds for a US-domiciled portfolio, it is important to consider that volatility and drawdown metrics are calculated on trailing historical data. Past standard deviations do not guarantee future behaviour, particularly around US Federal Reserve policy shifts, which have historically been the primary driver of cross-asset correlation breakdowns.

US Market Sector Exposure & Concentration Risk

MTUM.US is positioned primarily within US Equity. QQQ.US's exposure tilts toward US Equity. This sector divergence is one of the key structural drivers of the return and risk differences observed between the two funds over the study window.

For US investors building a diversified portfolio, the sector overlap — or lack thereof — between these two funds directly affects the marginal diversification benefit of holding both. Because both funds draw from the same US sector universe, holding both is unlikely to meaningfully reduce concentration risk beyond what either fund provides individually. An allocation to an uncorrelated asset class — such as US Treasury bonds (TLT) or commodities (PDBC) — would provide greater portfolio-level risk reduction.

Sector concentration is particularly consequential in the US equity market, where the top five S&P 500 holdings — Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA), Amazon (AMZN), and Alphabet (GOOGL) — have at times represented over 25% of the total index by market capitalisation. Funds with heavy US Technology exposure amplify this mega-cap concentration risk, while broader market or equal-weight funds dilute it.

Dividend Yield, Income Generation & US Tax Considerations

MTUM.US currently yields 82.00% annually, while QQQ.US yields 0.38%. On a $10,000 initial investment held over the study period, MTUM.US generated approximately $0 in cumulative income distributions versus $74 for QQQ.US — a gap of $74 in favour of QQQ.US.

For US taxable account holders, the character of dividend distributions matters as much as the yield itself. Qualified dividends — those from US corporations held longer than the required 60-day holding period — are taxed at preferential long-term capital gains rates (0%, 15%, or 20% depending on income bracket). Non-qualified or ordinary dividends are taxed as ordinary income, which can reach 37% for high earners. US investors should consult their own tax advisors to understand which distribution category applies to each fund's payout history.

Income-focused US investors — particularly those using tax-advantaged accounts such as a 401(k), IRA, or Roth IRA — can compound dividend distributions without immediate tax drag. In a taxable brokerage account, a higher-yielding fund may generate less after-tax wealth than a lower-yielding fund with equivalent total return, depending on the investor's marginal tax rate. The total return (price appreciation plus reinvested dividends) is generally the more complete measure of long-term performance.

MTUM.US's higher yield of 82.00% may appeal to US retirees or income-oriented investors who require regular cash flow from their portfolio. However, a higher yield is not automatically superior — it must be evaluated alongside payout sustainability, CAGR, and the fund's underlying sector composition.

Historical Trajectory

Growth of $10,000 Over 10 Years

Annual Returns Comparison

Performance Consistency

Rolling 12-Month Returns

Risk & Factor X-Ray AnalysisiAnalyzes downside volatility and macro factor exposures.

Proprietary StressScore™= round((Annualised Volatility × 0.5 + |Max Drawdown| × 0.5) × 100)

24/100
MTUM.US
Moderate Stress
Vol
17.4%
MDD
-30.2%
26/100
QQQ.US
Moderate Stress
Vol
18.9%
MDD
-32.6%

Historical Drawdowns

Return Correlation

84%
Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Moderately correlated. They share macro drivers but offer identifiable divergence.

Risk X-Ray Macro Factor Exposure Mapping

MTUM.US Factor Exposure
QQQ.US Factor Exposure

Fundamentals, Quality & IncomeiSide-by-side fundamental valuation, corporate health, and 10-year income generation.

Fundamentals Radar

Valuation & Quality Matrix

P/E Ratio
0.0
26.0
Forward P/EForward P/E RatioA valuation metric that compares the current stock price to estimated future earnings per share.Click for full definition →Next 12M Estimate
N/A
26.0xC
Squeeze RiskShort Squeeze RiskA situation where a sharp rise in the price of a stock forces short sellers to buy shares to cover their positions, further driving up the price.Click for full definition →
Low
Low
Piotroski F-ScorePiotroski F-ScoreA 9-point scoring system evaluating a company's financial strength across profitability, leverage, and operating efficiency.Click for full definition →
0
0
Altman Z-ScoreAltman Z-ScoreA bankruptcy prediction model that combines 5 financial ratios into a single score indicating financial distress risk.Click for full definition →
1.3
1.3
Market Cap
$0
$729.5B

10-Year Income Simulation ($10k)

Dividend YieldDividend YieldAnnual dividend paid per share divided by the current share price — expressed as a percentage income return.Click for full definition →
82.0%
0.4%
Total Income Gen
$0
$74

Momentum & Macro PositioningiCompares relative price trends, moving averages, and market sensitivity.

50-Day SMA

MTUM.US+10.8%
QQQ.US+4.6%

200-Day SMA

MTUM.US+25.4%
QQQ.US+15.2%

Beta (Market Risk)

MTUM.US1.15
QQQ.US1.23

Trend SignalGolden Cross & Death CrossTechnical chart patterns that occur when a short-term moving average crosses over a long-term moving average.Click for full definition →

MTUM.US
GOLDEN CROSS
QQQ.US
GOLDEN CROSS

RSI (14-Day)Relative Strength Index (RSI)A momentum oscillator that measures the speed and change of price movements to identify overbought or oversold conditions.Click for full definition →

MTUM.US
57
Neutral
QQQ.US
46
Neutral

Frequently Asked Questions

How did MTUM.US compare to QQQ.US historically?

MTUM.US and QQQ.US performed comparably over the measured period. Neither clearly dominated across all risk and return metrics. The right choice depends on your individual investment goals, income needs, and risk tolerance.

What is the 10-year CAGR of MTUM.US vs QQQ.US?

Over the 20162026 study period, MTUM.US produced an annualized return (CAGR) of 16.9% while QQQ.US produced 21.2%. A ${10,000} investment in MTUM.US would have grown to approximately $49,700, compared to $70,293 for QQQ.US.

What is the maximum drawdown of MTUM.US vs QQQ.US?

MTUM.US experienced a peak-to-trough drawdown of 30.2% (2022 was its worst year at -18.3%), versus 32.6% for QQQ.US (worst year 2022 at -32.6%). A smaller maximum drawdown indicates lower downside risk and is particularly important for investors close to or in retirement.

How correlated are MTUM.US and QQQ.US?

MTUM.US and QQQ.US have a Pearson return correlation of 84% over the study period. This moderate correlation means the ETFs share broad market drivers but show identifiable divergence, offering some diversification benefit when combined.

Which ETF has a better Sharpe ratio — MTUM.US or QQQ.US?

MTUM.US has a Sharpe ratio of 0.83 versus 1.00 for QQQ.US. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility) relative to a risk-free rate. QQQ.US delivered better risk-adjusted returns over the study period. MTUM.US had annualized volatility of 17.4% vs 18.9% for QQQ.US.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend — MTUM.US or QQQ.US?

MTUM.US has a dividend yield of 82.00%, while QQQ.US yields 0.38%. On a $10,000 investment, MTUM.US paid approximately $0 in cumulative income vs $74 for QQQ.US over the study period. Income-focused investors should weigh dividend yield alongside total return (price appreciation + dividends), since a lower-yielding ETF can still produce superior total returns through capital gains.

Popular ETF Comparisons

Build a Portfolio with MTUM.US or QQQ.US

Want to see how exactly these ETFs impact your actual portfolio? Run a Monte Carlo simulation or DCA backtest instantly on StressTest.pro.

Run a Custom Backtest