Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
MTUM vs XLG: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, MTUM returned +18.4% to XLG's +6.4%; 24% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about MTUM and XLG
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $18.7bn for iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and $11.9bn for Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.
Pair scorecard
MTUM costs 0.05 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 12.0 points; MTUM is 1.6 times larger.
| Measure | MTUM | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +18.4% | +6.4% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 11.9%, high on Jun 22, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index | S&P 500 Top 50 Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.20% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $18.7bn | $11.9bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 24% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 35.5% | 60.3% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Apr 26, 2013 to Oct 23, 2026 · 704 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: MTUM against MLRG, Apr 26, 2013 to Oct 23, 2026; XLG against IVV, May 20, 2005 to Oct 23, 2026.
XLG returned slightly more: +576.2% to +554.7%. XLG swung less: 16.4% to 19.0%. XLG fell less at its worst: −28.7% to −31.9%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | MTUM | XLG | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +554.7% | +576.2% | XLG (slight) | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +14.9% | +15.2% | Tie | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +459.1% | +451.2% | Tie | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 19.0% | 16.4% | XLG | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 13.0% | 11.2% | XLG | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −31.9% | −28.7% | XLG | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 106.2% | 97.7% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 101.7% | 98.5% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.95 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.76 | 0.95 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.73 | 0.83 | XLG | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 1.07 | 1.22 | XLG | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.135 | 0.108 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.47 | 0.53 | XLG | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | MLRG | IVV | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | +1.3% a year | +0.5% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | 0.53 | 0.68 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −3.7% to +6.3% | −1.0% to +2.1% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | 0.17 | 0.02 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 9.3% | 3.8% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 704 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, MTUM and XLG hold 24% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.
half
24% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
MTUM and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MTUM and XLG are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. MTUM follows MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index and XLG follows S&P 500 Top 50 Index.
- Holdings in common. 24% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 27, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 MTUM returned +18.4% and XLG +6.4% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 12.0 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
MTUM
MTUM tracks the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +18.4% with distributions reinvested, against +13.6% for its benchmark, the MSCI USA Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 93% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 126 positions, with the top ten at 35.5%. It sat 11.9% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
XLG
XLG tracks the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +6.4% with distributions reinvested, against +13.7% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 60.3%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, MTUM or XLG?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MTUM returned +18.4% and XLG +6.4%.
- Which is cheaper, MTUM or XLG?
- MTUM is cheaper, by 0.05 percentage points a year. That is about $5 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, MTUM against XLG, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/mtum-vs-xlg
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). MTUM against XLG. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/mtum-vs-xlg
[MTUM against XLG (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/mtum-vs-xlg)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.