MTUM vs QUAL: Correlation & Overlap
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (QUAL) show a very strong relationship: their 3-year correlation of weekly returns is 0.84. Looking through to holdings, 21.4% of the two portfolios is the same by weight.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are MTUM and QUAL?
Over the past 3 years, MTUM and QUAL moved with a correlation of 0.84, which is very strong, meaning they move nearly in lockstep. The link has loosened recently: the 1-year correlation (0.67) runs below the 3-year figure (0.84). Over 5 years the correlation is 0.82, and the annualized covariance of weekly returns is 242.2 %².
Within MTUM's tracked universe of 109 assets, QUAL comes in at #15 by 3-year correlation. The trailing year gives MTUM the advantage: +25.2% versus +19.7%, a 5.5-point spread. The rolling one-year correlation moved between 0.66 and 0.94 over the past three years, a moderate range.
How is this computed?
Pearson correlation on weekly returns: ρ(A,B) = cov(rA, rB) / (σA · σB), over windows of 52, 156 and 260 weeks. Covariance is annualized (×52) and expressed in %². Full definitions on the methodology page.
MTUM vs QUAL: side by side
| MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF) | QUAL (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +25.2% | +19.7% |
| 5-year return | +76.1% | +68.0% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 20.6% | 14.0% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 1.25 | 0.93 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -21.0% | -18.0% |
| Dividend yield | 0.62% | 0.86% |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% |
| Assets under management | $25.3B | $46.5B |
| Sector / category | ETF · US Style | ETF · US Style |
MTUM is a Large Blend fund from iShares: $25.3B under management, 126 holdings, a 0.15% expense ratio, a 0.62% trailing dividend yield. QUAL, iShares's Large Blend fund, carries $46.5B under management, 123 holdings, a 0.15% expense ratio, a 0.86% trailing dividend yield.
Portfolio overlap between MTUM and QUAL
The two portfolios partially overlap: 21.4% of the funds' weight sits in the same underlying holdings (25 common positions). Correlation tells you they move together; overlap tells you why.
| Common holding | Weight in MTUM | Weight in QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| LRCX | 3.26% | 3.66% |
| AMAT | 2.89% | 2.88% |
| XOM | 3.78% | 2.18% |
| JNJ | 3.67% | 2.13% |
| GOOGL | 2.44% | 1.93% |
| GOOG | 1.89% | 1.52% |
| KLAC | 1.51% | 2.44% |
| WMT | 2.44% | 0.91% |
| ANET | 0.80% | 1.52% |
| TJX | 0.56% | 3.40% |
| FIX | 0.61% | 0.56% |
| ROST | 0.53% | 1.44% |
| HWM | 0.48% | 0.77% |
| TER | 0.58% | 0.34% |
| SLB | 0.50% | 0.31% |
Largest positions held only by MTUM: MU (6.60%), AMD (5.09%), AVGO (4.25%), INTC (3.91%), CAT (3.63%). Only by QUAL: MSFT (7.51%), AAPL (6.62%), NVDA (6.00%), META (3.75%), LLY (3.72%).
Overlap = sum of the smaller of the two weights across common holdings, from issuer disclosures as of 2026-08-26. Top 15 common positions shown.
Year-by-year returns
| Year | MTUM | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -18.3% | -20.5% |
| 2023 | +9.1% | +30.9% |
| 2024 | +32.9% | +22.3% |
| 2025 | +22.1% | +12.7% |
| 2026 | +21.8% | +13.5% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are MTUM and QUAL good diversifiers for each other?
No: a correlation of 0.84 means MTUM and QUAL tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
FAQ
What is the correlation between MTUM and QUAL?
The MTUM/QUAL correlation stands at 0.84 on a 3-year window (1 year: 0.67, 5 years: 0.82), computed from weekly returns as of 2026-08-27.
Is QUAL a good diversifier for MTUM?
No: a correlation of 0.84 means MTUM and QUAL tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
How much do MTUM and QUAL overlap?
Per the issuers' own portfolio disclosures (2026-08-26), the overlap is 21.4% by weight over 25 common positions.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/mtum-vs-qual.json
Markdown for the live badge, attribution link included:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/mtum-vs-qual/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: MTUM correlations · QUAL correlations
