ARKW vs MILN
ARK Next Generation Technology ETF vs Global X Millennial Consumer ETF
Which is better, ARKW or MILN?
ARKW has been ahead.
MILN has a lower expense ratio. ARKW led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. MILN is less concentrated, with 33.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.6%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ARKW | MILN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.76% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $2.0B | $89M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.47% | 0.33% |
| Holdings | 88 | 164 |
| YTD Return | +7.08%Best | -7.25% |
| 1Y Return | -5.81%Best | -10.86% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +44.31%Best | +12.75% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +2.38%Best | -0.22% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.2% | 20.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -80.0% | -44.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,248Best | $9,890 |
| Top 10 Weight | 44.6% | 33.8%Best |
| Fund Family | Ark Invest | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2014 | May 4, 2016 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 6, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (10.4 years).
ARKW vs MILN growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 10.4 years both funds cover.
ARKW vs MILN Performance
ARK Next Generation Technology ETF (ARKW) is an ETF from Ark Invest and Global X Millennial Consumer ETF (MILN) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year ARKW returned -5.81% while MILN returned -10.86%. Year to date, ARKW is up 7.08% versus a loss of 7.25% for MILN.
Over three years, ARKW compounded at +44.31% per year against +12.75% for MILN; over five years the annualized figures are +2.38% and -0.22% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, ARKW has the edge at +24.37% annualized vs +10.90%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ARKW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.2% compared with 20.2% for MILN. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -80.0% for ARKW and -44.4% for MILN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ARKW charges 0.76% per year while MILN charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $76 vs $50 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ARKW currently yields 1.47% against 0.33% for MILN.
Holdings Overlap
11.6% of ARKW's money is in holdings MILN also owns. 19.2% of MILN's money is in holdings ARKW also owns.
MILN and ARKW share little of their money.
6 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in ARKW and 80 in MILN, against full books of 88 and 164.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 72 positions for MILN that do not appear in our book for ARKW (76.6% of the fund), and 30 for ARKW that do not appear in MILN (77.9%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ARKW and MILN you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ARKW or MILN?
ARKW has an expense ratio of 0.76% while MILN charges 0.50%. MILN is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ARKW or MILN?
Over the past year ARKW returned -5.81% vs -10.86% for MILN, so ARKW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), ARKW annualized +24.37% vs +10.90% for MILN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ARKW or MILN?
ARKW has been the more volatile fund at 35.2% annualized versus 20.2% for MILN. Worst drawdown: ARKW -80.0% vs MILN -44.4%.
Should I hold both ARKW and MILN?
ARKW and MILN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ARKW and MILN?
19.2% of MILN's money is in holdings ARKW also owns. 19.2% of MILN's is in holdings ARKW also owns. They hold 6 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in ARKW and 80 in MILN.
Which pays a higher dividend, ARKW or MILN?
ARKW yields 1.47% while MILN yields 0.33%, so ARKW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MILN better than ARKW?
MILN has a lower expense ratio. ARKW led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. MILN is less concentrated, with 33.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.