Best SPMO Alternatives in 2026

This category represents momentum-factor equity ETFs positioned as alternatives to SPMO, rather than traditional income-focused funds. With an average yield of just 0.62% and modest expense ratios averaging 0.28%, these products are built primarily for price-momentum exposure rather than dividend generation. Issuance is dominated by iShares through MTUM, which at $24.1B in AUM dwarfs the rest of the category, though several major asset managers—JPMorgan, Vanguard, Fidelity Investments, and State Street—all offer competing momentum products. Distribution schedules are mostly quarterly, with QMOM standing out as the lone annual payer among the funds shown above.

• MTUM holds $24.1B in AUM, far exceeding any other fund in the top 9 shown, with the next-largest, JMOM, at $2.7B.
• Among the funds shown above, ONEO and MMTM post the highest yields at 1.18% and 1.15% respectively, both from State Street and paid quarterly.
• AMOM shows the lowest yield in this group at 0.03%, paired with the highest expense ratio among the funds shown, 0.75%.
• Among quarterly-pay funds shown, JMOM, VFMO, and MMTM tie for the lowest expense ratio at 0.12%–0.13%, notably cheaper than PDP at 0.62% or AMOM at 0.75%.
• QMOM is the only annual-distribution fund in this set, making direct yield comparisons to the quarterly-pay peers less straightforward.

Investors considering this category should note that yields here are incidental to momentum-based stock selection rather than a primary objective, meaning distributions can be small and inconsistent year to year. Expense ratios vary meaningfully, from 0.12% up to 0.75% among the funds shown, and smaller funds like ONEO and AMOM—with AUM under $35M—may carry additional liquidity considerations. Momentum strategies can also experience higher turnover and sharper drawdowns during factor rotations, which is a structural characteristic worth weighing alongside cost and yield data when comparing these alternatives.

• Strategy mismatch: several funds on this list track a different index or use a different income mechanism than SPMO, so swapping into one changes the exposure — upside participation, payout cadence, and tax character can all shift, not just the ticker.
• Liquidity and closure risk: 2 of the 9 funds listed hold under $100M in assets, and small funds tend to trade with wider bid-ask spreads and face a higher risk of liquidation.
• Distributions are not contractual: each payout is declared period by period, so the yields on this page can fall without notice when portfolio income, option premium, or fund policy changes.
• Methodology divergence: every fund here follows its own index rules or mandate, so two funds with similar headline yields can hold very different portfolios and diverge sharply in a drawdown — category membership is not interchangeability.
• Screens react after the fact: a fund's place in this list is re-rated only once a dividend cut, strategy change, or asset decline has already shown up in the reported data.

• Universe: a hand-curated peer set, split into close peers (9 here — same core exposure and same income mechanism, so a like-for-like swap) and broader substitutes (a different index, underlying asset, or income mechanism). Every fund is labelled in the Strategy fit column; SPMO itself is excluded.
• Eligibility: active ETFs only — liquidated, delisted, and renamed funds drop out automatically. Leveraged and inverse products are never listed: a daily-reset 2x or -1x fund is not an alternative to a long income position.
• Ranking: assets under management, a size-and-liquidity proxy. Never ranked by yield — yields are shown as data, not used to order the list.
• Fit: how each fund's strategy differs from SPMO — and who each one suits — is covered in the strategy notes and FAQ below.