Screener
IMF vs MATE
Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF vs Man Active Trend Enhanced ETF
Key differences
- IMF costs 0.32% less per year.
- IMF is significantly larger than MATE — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IMF follows a managed futures strategy; MATE uses tactical allocation.
Side-by-side comparison
| IMF | MATE | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.65% | 0.97% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $301M | $37M |
| Since | 2025 | 2025 |
| Dividend yield | 0.89% | — |
| Asset class | alternative | alternative |
| Region | — | emerging markets |
| Strategy | managed futures | tactical allocation |
| CAGR 1Y | +19.0% | N/A |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 10.47% | — |
| Max drawdown | -15.10% | -13.24% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IMF and MATE
Explore further