ALLW vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ALLW (SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ALLW is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by State Street, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ALLW returned 23.78% vs 31.40% for DBMF. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.85% expense ratio.

Performance

ALLW vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ALLW achieves a 9.20% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 12.42% return.

ALLW

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 9.20%
• 6M: 8.47%
• 1Y: 23.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 2.35%
• YTD: 12.42%
• 6M: 14.20%
• 1Y: 31.40%
• 3Y*: 10.81%
• 5Y*: 8.46%
• 10Y*: —

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

ALLW vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	9.20%	15.04%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	12.42%	17.58%

Correlation

The correlation between ALLW and DBMF is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2025	0.52

The correlation between ALLW and DBMF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

ALLW vs. DBMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ALLW	DBMF
Technology	26.3%	29.8%
Financial Services	15.8%	12.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	11.0%
Communication Services	9.7%	8.6%
Industrials	9.2%	8.4%
Healthcare	8.2%	12.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	6.1%
Energy	4.9%	3.9%
Basic Materials	4.6%	2.2%
Utilities	2.8%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.8%	2.5%

Return for Risk

ALLW vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 67
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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: 87

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.

ALLW vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) 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.

	ALLW	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	2.59	-0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	3.39	-0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.55	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.30	5.17	-1.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.01	19.07	-5.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ALLW vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALLW Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALLW 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

	ALLW	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.27	2.59	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.62	0.77	+0.84

Drawdowns

ALLW vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALLW drawdown since its inception was -8.78%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALLW and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALLW	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.78%	-20.39%	+11.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-6.10%	-1.13%
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	-0.79%	0.00%	-0.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.20%	-6.59%	+5.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.70%	1.65%	+0.05%

Volatility

ALLW vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) has a higher volatility of 3.43% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.12%. This indicates that ALLW'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

	ALLW	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.43%	2.12%	+1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.71%	9.76%	-1.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.52%	12.17%	-1.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.54%	12.52%	+0.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.54%	12.41%	+0.13%

ALLW vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ALLW and DBMF have an expense ratio of 0.85%.

Dividends

ALLW vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

ALLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.28%, less than DBMF's 5.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.28%	4.67%	0.00%	0.00%	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 ALLW and DBMF in my portfolio?

ALLW and DBMF have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ALLW or DBMF?

ALLW has higher volatility (3.43%) compared to DBMF (2.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ALLW dropped -8.78% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, ALLW or DBMF?

On 1-year performance, DBMF leads with 31.40% vs 23.78% for ALLW. Both ETFs have the same 0.85% expense ratio. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ALLW or DBMF?

Over the 1-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 31.40% return vs 23.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ALLW or DBMF?

ALLW and DBMF have the same expense ratio: 0.85% per year.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.09%, compared with 4.28% for ALLW.

What is the main difference between ALLW and DBMF?

ALLW is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iM Global Partners.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.27), 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.