CANE vs. DFNM
CANE (Teucrium Sugar Fund) and DFNM (Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CANE is a Agricultural Commodities fund tracking the Teucrium Sugar Fund Benchmark, while DFNM is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Dimensional. CANE is passively managed, while DFNM is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CANE returned -10.13%/yr vs 3.09%/yr for DFNM. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CANE charges 1.88%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for DFNM.
Performance
CANE vs. DFNM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CANE achieves a -2.31% return, which is significantly lower than DFNM's 1.21% return.
CANE
- 1D
- -2.85%
- 1M
- 1.06%
- 6M
- 0.53%
- YTD
- -2.31%
- 1Y
- -13.75%
- 3Y*
- -10.13%
- 5Y*
- 2.40%
- 10Y*
- -2.85%
DFNM
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -0.12%
- 6M
- 0.54%
- YTD
- 1.21%
- 1Y
- 4.47%
- 3Y*
- 3.09%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CANE vs. DFNM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CANE Teucrium Sugar Fund | -2.31% | -14.65% | -7.79% | 30.06% | 3.59% | -3.46% |
DFNM Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF | 1.21% | 3.87% | 1.19% | 3.97% | -4.02% | 0.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between CANE and DFNM is -0.27, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2021 | -0.01 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between CANE and DFNM has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.01 to -0.27, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CANE vs. DFNM — Risk / Return Rank
CANE
DFNM
CANE vs. DFNM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Teucrium Sugar Fund (CANE) and Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| CANE | DFNM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.90 | 1.58 | -0.68 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.70 | 2.44 | -3.14 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.06 | 8.79 | -9.85 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CANE vs. DFNM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CANE drawdown since its inception was -81.30%, which is greater than DFNM's maximum drawdown of -6.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANE and DFNM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CANE | DFNM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -81.30% | -6.99% | -74.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.82% | -1.84% | -17.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -41.73% | -2.82% | -38.91% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.73% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -67.29% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -63.78% | -0.46% | -63.32% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -56.54% | -1.92% | -54.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.01% | 0.51% | +12.50% |
Volatility
CANE vs. DFNM - Volatility Comparison
Teucrium Sugar Fund (CANE) has a higher volatility of 6.17% compared to Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) at 0.34%. This indicates that CANE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFNM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CANE | DFNM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.17% | 0.34% | +5.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.26% | 1.29% | +14.97% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.18% | 1.72% | +18.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.01% | 2.51% | +18.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.60% | 2.51% | +19.09% |
CANE vs. DFNM - Expense Ratio Comparison
CANE has a 1.88% expense ratio, which is higher than DFNM's 0.17% expense ratio.
Dividends
CANE vs. DFNM - Dividend Comparison
CANE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DFNM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CANE Teucrium Sugar Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
DFNM Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF | 2.94% | 2.94% | 2.74% | 2.39% | 1.16% | 0.05% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CANE and DFNM have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CANE has higher volatility (6.17%) compared to DFNM (0.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANE dropped -81.30% vs DFNM's -6.99%.
On 3-year performance, DFNM leads with 3.09% vs -10.13% for CANE. On fees, DFNM is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, DFNM has been the lower-risk option at 0.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, DFNM has performed better with a 3.09% return vs -10.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DFNM is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.88% for CANE.
DFNM has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 0.00% for CANE.
CANE is categorized as Agricultural Commodities, while DFNM is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 1.88% for CANE and 0.17% for DFNM.
DFNM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs -0.68), 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.
Find the right allocation for CANE and DFNM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer