CEFZ vs. GMMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CEFZ (RiverNorth Active Income ETF) and GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. CEFZ is actively managed, while GMMA is passively managed. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEFZ charges 3.36%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GMMA.

Performance

CEFZ vs. GMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverNorth Active Income ETF (CEFZ) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEFZ achieves a 3.57% return, which is significantly higher than GMMA's 1.98% return.

CEFZ

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: -1.00%
• YTD: 3.57%
• 6M: 3.99%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GMMA

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 1.98%
• 6M: 1.78%
• 1Y: 8.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CEFZ vs. GMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CEFZ RiverNorth Active Income ETF	3.57%	7.41%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	1.98%	5.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CEFZ and GMMA is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 4, 2025	0.65

Return for Risk

CEFZ vs. GMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEFZ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 47
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

CEFZ vs. GMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverNorth Active Income ETF (CEFZ) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). 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.

	CEFZ	GMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.38	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.92	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.27	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.45	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	8.01	—

Drawdowns

CEFZ vs. GMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEFZ drawdown since its inception was -6.66%, which is greater than GMMA's maximum drawdown of -5.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFZ and GMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEFZ	GMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.66%	-5.21%	-1.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.23%	-1.98%	-0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.21%	-1.24%	+0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.04%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CEFZ	GMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.12%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	4.92%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.46%	6.05%	+4.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.46%	7.34%	+3.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.46%	7.34%	+3.12%

CEFZ vs. GMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEFZ has a 3.36% expense ratio, which is higher than GMMA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEFZ vs. GMMA - Dividend Comparison

CEFZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.40%, more than GMMA's 3.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CEFZ RiverNorth Active Income ETF	8.40%	4.17%	0.00%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.70%	3.00%	0.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEFZ and GMMA in my portfolio?

CEFZ and GMMA have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEFZ or GMMA?

On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEFZ or GMMA?

GMMA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 3.36% for CEFZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CEFZ or GMMA?

CEFZ has the higher dividend yield at 8.40%, compared with 3.70% for GMMA.

What is the main difference between CEFZ and GMMA?

They also come from different issuers: RiverNorth and GammaRoad Capital Partners. Their fees differ too: 3.36% for CEFZ and 0.75% for GMMA.