Which did better when the S&P 500 fell, MFUT or RSST?

In the 26 weeks the S&P 500 fell, by 1.07% a week on average, MFUT averaged −0.96% and RSST −1.76%, so MFUT returned more in those weeks.

Which earned more than cash, MFUT or RSST?

Over the same weeks, MFUT finished 19.1 percentage points ahead of cash and RSST finished 18.9 percentage points ahead of cash. Cash here is BIL, a fund of Treasury bills.

Which is cheaper, MFUT or RSST?

MFUT charges 0.89% a year and RSST charges 0.99%, so MFUT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Data as of Nov 4, 2026.

Alternative ETFs

MFUT vs RSST: Correlation to the S&P 500

Share on X Download as PDF

Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, MFUT moved less with the S&P 500 than RSST: correlation +0.54 against +0.85.

askIQ about this page

askIQ about MFUT and RSST

Net assets: $39m on Jun 30, 2026 for Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF, and $480m on Jul 31, 2026 for Return Stacked U.S. Stocks & Managed Futures ETF.

MFUT on its own →RSST on its own →

At a glance

+0.54

MFUT correlation with the S&P 500

+0.85

RSST correlation with the S&P 500

89.9%

MFUT down-week capture

164.8%

RSST down-week capture

MFUT Fell 90% as much as the S&P 500

MFUT in the 26 weeks SPY fell, year to Nov 4, 2026: SPY averaged −1.07%, MFUT −0.96%.

RSST Fell more than the S&P 500

RSST in the 26 weeks SPY fell, year to Nov 4, 2026: SPY averaged −1.07%, RSST −1.76%.

Pair scorecard

MFUT costs 0.10 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 0.5 points.

MFUT vs RSST: Correlation to the S&P 500
Measure	MFUT	RSST
Return
Measure	MFUT	RSST
Total return, 1 year	+22.8%	+23.3%
Against its benchmark
Measure	MFUT	RSST
Treasury bills, 52 weeks	+3.7%
Cost and size
Measure	MFUT	RSST
Expense ratio	0.89%	0.99%
Net assets, MFUT as of Jun 30, 2026 and RSST as of Jul 31, 2026	$39m	$480m
Holdings
Measure	MFUT	RSST
Holdings in common	not published
Risk
Measure	MFUT	RSST
Beta to the S&P 500	+0.74: about 0.74% for each 1%	+1.45: about 1.45% for each 1%
Its average week when the S&P 500 fell	fell 0.96%	fell 1.76%

ETFIQ Stock Diversification Score · MFUT scores higher How much does it diversify a stock portfolio?

IQ Alternatives Score29.4MFUT2.9RSST

How much it diversifies a stock portfolio, ranked against 17 systematic trend alternatives ETFs with a full year. 100 is best. How it is computed

MFUT 29.4

RSST 2.9

2.9, the lowest in this set 94.2, the highest

One year of weekly moves against the S&P 500, within one strategy; it ignores what the fund returned. All alternatives ETFs ranked by it →

Method

Window by window

Window by window: MFUT vs RSST: Correlation to the S&P 500
	Total return		vs its benchmark
Window	MFUT	RSST	MFUT	RSST
3 months	−2.0%	+0.9%	not measured	+1.0 pts vs VOO
6 months	−1.4%	+3.0%	not measured	−2.0 pts vs VOO
1 year	+22.8%	+23.3%	not measured	+8.5 pts vs VOO
3 years	–	+80.1%	–	−3.2 pts vs VOO
Since launchNot the same days: MFUT May 2024 · RSST Sep 2023	−5.4%	+71.0%	not measured	−8.2 pts vs VOO

– means no data for this window. Open this comparison in the app →

Side by side

MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF · Managed futures fund: follows price trends in futures on stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, and can bet on falls as well as rises RSST Return Stacked U.S. Stocks & Managed Futures ETF · Managed futures fund: follows price trends in futures on stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, and can bet on falls as well as rises

Issuer Cambria Return Stacked

Strategy Managed futures Managed futures

Correlation with the S&P 500 +0.54 +0.85

Beta to the S&P 500 +0.74 +1.45

Down-week capture 89.9% 164.8%

Average week when the S&P 500 fell −0.96% −1.76%

The S&P 500 in those weeks −1.07% −1.07%

Total return, same 52 weeks +22.8% +22.5%

Against T-bills, percentage points +19.1 pts +18.9 pts

Expense ratio 0.89% 0.99%

First traded May 29, 2024 Sep 6, 2023

Net assets, MFUT as of Jun 30, 2026 and RSST as of Jul 31, 2026 $39m $480m

As of Nov 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

One strategy, two funds

MFUT and RSST both run a managed futures strategy. Over the same 52 weeks to Nov 4, 2026, MFUT’s weekly returns had a correlation of +0.54 with the S&P 500 and RSST’s +0.85. In the 26 weeks the index fell, by 1.07% a week on average, MFUT averaged −0.96% and RSST −1.76%. Over the same weeks, MFUT finished 19.1 percentage points ahead of cash and RSST finished 18.9 points ahead of cash.

Alert

About each fund

MFUT

MFUT is a managed futures fund. ETFIQ measures what every alternatives fund is sold on: whether it moves differently from the stock market. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, its weekly returns had a correlation of +0.54 with the S&P 500’s and a beta of +0.74, so for each 1% the index moved it moved about 0.74% the same way. The S&P 500 fell in 26 of those 52 weeks, by 1.07% on average. In the same weeks MFUT fell 0.96% on average, a down-week capture of 89.9%. Over the same 52 weeks MFUT returned +22.8% and a Treasury bill fund +3.7%, so it finished 19.1 percentage points ahead of cash.

RSST

RSST is a managed futures fund. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, its weekly returns had a correlation of +0.85 with the S&P 500’s and a beta of +1.45, so for each 1% the index moved it moved about 1.45% the same way. In the same weeks RSST fell 1.76% on average, a down-week capture of 164.8%. Over the same 52 weeks RSST returned +22.5% and a Treasury bill fund +3.7%, so it finished 18.9 percentage points ahead of cash.

Questions people ask

Which moved less with the S&P 500, MFUT or RSST?: Over the 52 weeks to Nov 4, 2026, MFUT’s weekly returns had a correlation of +0.54 with the S&P 500 and RSST’s +0.85, so MFUT moved less with the index.
Which did better when the S&P 500 fell, MFUT or RSST?: In the 26 weeks the S&P 500 fell, by 1.07% a week on average, MFUT averaged −0.96% and RSST −1.76%, so MFUT returned more in those weeks.
Which earned more than cash, MFUT or RSST?: Over the same weeks, MFUT finished 19.1 percentage points ahead of cash and RSST finished 18.9 percentage points ahead of cash. Cash here is BIL, a fund of Treasury bills.
Which is cheaper, MFUT or RSST?: MFUT charges 0.89% a year and RSST charges 0.99%, so MFUT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

MFUT vs RSBT MFUT vs DBMF MFUT vs FFUT MFUT vs IMF RSST vs ASMF RSST vs HFMF RSST vs PRAE RSST vs AHLT

Where to next

BIL, the T-bill fund these are measured against →SPY, the S&P 500 fund these are measured against →MFUT on its own →RSST on its own →MFUT dividend history →RSST dividend history →Method →Standards and sources →

Sources and dates

MFUT and RSST filings on SEC EDGAR ↗

MFUT prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗

Cambria website ↗

RSST prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗

Return Stacked website ↗

Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.

How this is computed

It is a place in a set, not a rating or a recommendation.

Every number is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested.

Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown

ETFIQ, MFUT against RSST, data as of Nov 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/alternatives/mfut-vs-rsst

Open data →

Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.