Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
GRNY vs MTUM: how they differ
GRNY and MTUM hold 31% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, GRNY and MTUM hold 31% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | GRNY | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Advanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.17% | 4.04% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.96% | 2.95% |
| Broadcom Inc | 2.94% | 5.41% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 2.69% | 3.21% |
| GE Vernova Inc | 3.05% | 2.54% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 2.46% | 4.65% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 2.33% | 2.87% |
| General Electric Co | 2.04% | 1.90% |
| Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 2.27% | 1.69% |
| KLA Corp | 2.75% | 1.61% |
| Palantir Technologies Inc | 2.33% | 1.52% |
| TJX Cos Inc/The | 2.33% | 0.90% |
| Only in GRNY | Only in MTUM |
|---|---|
| Amazon.com Inc 3.02% | MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5.57% |
| Strategy Inc 3.01% | INTEL CORPORATION 3.84% |
| Netflix Inc 2.82% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76% |
| Eaton Corp PLC 2.56% | LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62% |
| Cadence Design Systems Inc 2.54% | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% |
| ONEOK Inc 2.49% | WALMART INC. 2.76% |
| Air Products and Chemicals Inc 2.48% | ALPHABET INC. 2.39% |
| Chevron Corp 2.46% | APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 2.36% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026.
| GRNY Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF | MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Fundstrat | iShares |
| What it is | Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap | MSCI USA Momentum Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +13.8% | +21.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −3.7 pts | +4.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 97.0% | 98.2% |
| Holdings | 40 | 125 |
GRNY in plain words
GRNY is an index equity fund tracking the Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 40 positions, with the top ten at 30.8%.
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, GRNY or MTUM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GRNY returned +13.8% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, GRNY or MTUM?
- GRNY charges 0.75% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do GRNY and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of GRNY and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 31% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, GRNY against MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/GRNY-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources