AHLT vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AHLT (American Beacon AHL Trend ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both Systematic Trend funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AHLT returned 37.17% vs 31.00% for DBMF. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AHLT charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

AHLT vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Beacon AHL Trend ETF (AHLT) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with AHLT having a 12.65% return and DBMF slightly lower at 12.38%.

AHLT

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 3.10%
• YTD: 12.65%
• 6M: 16.87%
• 1Y: 37.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: 2.88%
• YTD: 12.38%
• 6M: 14.24%
• 1Y: 31.00%
• 3Y*: 10.80%
• 5Y*: 8.58%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AHLT vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AHLT American Beacon AHL Trend ETF	12.65%	13.73%	6.08%	-8.33%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	12.38%	13.85%	7.24%	-4.02%

Correlation

The correlation between AHLT and DBMF is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 1, 2023	0.75

The correlation between AHLT and DBMF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

AHLT vs. DBMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AHLT	DBMF
Technology	19.6%	29.8%
Financial Services	19.0%	12.5%
Industrials	13.1%	8.4%
Healthcare	10.4%	12.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	11.0%
Consumer Defensive	8.5%	6.1%
Communication Services	6.3%	8.6%
Energy	5.5%	3.9%
Utilities	3.6%	2.3%
Basic Materials	3.6%	2.2%
Real Estate	1.1%	2.5%

Return for Risk

AHLT vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AHLT

AHLT Risk / Return Rank: 68
AHLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
AHLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
AHLT Omega Ratio Rank: 65
AHLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
AHLT Martin Ratio Rank: 68

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 83
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 88

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AHLT vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Beacon AHL Trend ETF (AHLT) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AHLT	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.18	2.56	-0.38
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	3.35	-0.57
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.54	-0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.77	5.21	-0.44
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.90	19.24	-6.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AHLT vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AHLT Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AHLT and DBMF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AHLT	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.18	2.56	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.69	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.77	-0.29

Drawdowns

AHLT vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AHLT drawdown since its inception was -20.18%, roughly equal to the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AHLT and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	AHLT	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.18%	-20.39%	+0.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.26%	-6.10%	-2.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.60%	0.00%	-0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.41%	-6.59%	-2.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.05%	1.65%	+1.40%

Volatility

AHLT vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

American Beacon AHL Trend ETF (AHLT) has a higher volatility of 2.60% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.16%. This indicates that AHLT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AHLT	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.60%	2.16%	+0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.12%	9.80%	+2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.16%	12.18%	+4.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.38%	12.53%	+4.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.38%	12.42%	+4.96%

AHLT vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

AHLT has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

AHLT vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

AHLT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, less than DBMF's 5.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AHLT American Beacon AHL Trend ETF	1.51%	1.70%	0.00%	3.72%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.09%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AHLT and DBMF in my portfolio?

AHLT and DBMF have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AHLT or DBMF?

AHLT has higher volatility (2.60%) compared to DBMF (2.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AHLT dropped -20.18% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, AHLT or DBMF?

On 1-year performance, AHLT leads with 37.17% vs 31.00% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AHLT or DBMF?

Over the 1-year period, AHLT has performed better with a 37.17% return vs 31.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AHLT or DBMF?

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for AHLT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AHLT or DBMF?

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.09%, compared with 1.51% for AHLT.

What is the main difference between AHLT and DBMF?

They also come from different issuers: American Beacon and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for AHLT and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.18), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.