CL vs. DBMF

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company) is a stock, while DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) is Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. Over the past 5 years, CL returned 4.19%/yr vs 8.70%/yr for DBMF. Their -0.01 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past.

Performance

CL vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) 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, CL achieves a 16.93% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 12.95% return.

CL

• 1D: 0.74%
• 1M: 0.23%
• 6M: 5.97%
• YTD: 16.93%
• 1Y: 5.79%
• 3Y*: 7.74%
• 5Y*: 4.19%
• 10Y*: 4.50%
• ALL TIME*: 10.27%

DBMF

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 3.44%
• 6M: 7.95%
• YTD: 12.95%
• 1Y: 27.97%
• 3Y*: 10.07%
• 5Y*: 8.70%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.43%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company	$372.56M	$413.89M	$462.96M
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	$48.88M	$50.74M	$48.74M

CL vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company	16.93%	-10.98%	16.57%	3.78%	-5.44%	2.08%	27.17%	-1.18%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	12.95%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between CL and DBMF is -0.13, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.13
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.05
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	-0.01

The correlation between CL and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CL vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CL

CL Risk / Return Rank: 53
CL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CL Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
CL Omega Ratio Rank: 47
CL Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
CL Martin Ratio Rank: 54

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 91
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 92
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

CL vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) 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.

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.

	CL	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.23	2.21	-1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	2.91	-2.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.45	-0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.31	4.59	-4.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.57	15.59	-15.03

CL vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CL Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is lower than the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CL 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.

Drawdowns

CL vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CL drawdown since its inception was -58.91%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CL and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CL	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.91%	-20.39%	-38.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.97%	-6.10%	-10.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.05%	-15.60%	-13.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.05%	-20.39%	-8.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-29.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.56%	-0.25%	-12.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.24%	-6.49%	-4.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.34%	1.79%	+7.55%

Volatility

CL vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) has a higher volatility of 7.39% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.42%. This indicates that CL'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

	CL	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.39%	2.42%	+4.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.72%	9.96%	+7.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.48%	12.66%	+9.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.07%	12.43%	+6.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.87%	12.37%	+7.50%

Dividends

CL vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

CL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, less than DBMF's 5.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company	2.31%	2.61%	2.18%	2.40%	2.36%	2.10%	2.05%	2.48%	2.79%	2.11%	2.37%	2.25%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.03%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CL and DBMF in my portfolio?

CL and DBMF have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CL or DBMF?

CL has higher volatility (7.39%) compared to DBMF (2.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CL dropped -58.91% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 0.23), 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.