CLSE vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLSE returned 31.66%/yr vs 9.42%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLSE charges 1.52%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

CLSE vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) 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, CLSE achieves a 25.06% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 10.63% return.

CLSE

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 3.61%
• YTD: 25.06%
• 6M: 24.84%
• 1Y: 50.50%
• 3Y*: 31.66%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: -0.61%
• YTD: 10.63%
• 6M: 10.35%
• 1Y: 27.45%
• 3Y*: 9.42%
• 5Y*: 8.69%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSE vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.06%	20.44%	35.54%	17.54%	-4.38%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.63%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	20.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSE and DBMF is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2022	0.15

The correlation between CLSE and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (all time) to 0.29 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CLSE vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 94
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 79
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

CLSE vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) 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.

	CLSE	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.66	2.23	+1.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.92	2.93	+1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.64	1.47	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.26	4.54	+5.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	37.35	16.23	+21.12

CLSE vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSE Sharpe Ratio is 3.66, which is higher than the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSE 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

CLSE vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSE drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSE and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSE	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.45%	-20.39%	+3.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.85%	-6.10%	+1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.45%	-15.60%	-0.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-1.59%	+0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.57%	-6.55%	+2.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.33%	1.70%	-0.37%

Volatility

CLSE vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) has a higher volatility of 4.02% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.92%. This indicates that CLSE'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

	CLSE	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.02%	2.92%	+1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.55%	10.05%	+0.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.61%	12.39%	+1.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.91%	12.53%	+1.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.91%	12.41%	+1.50%

CLSE vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSE has a 1.52% expense ratio, which is higher than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSE vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

CLSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, less than DBMF's 5.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.17%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSE and DBMF in my portfolio?

CLSE and DBMF have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLSE or DBMF?

CLSE has higher volatility (4.02%) compared to DBMF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSE dropped -16.45% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, CLSE or DBMF?

On 3-year performance, CLSE leads with 31.66% vs 9.42% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSE or DBMF?

Over the 3-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 31.66% return vs 9.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSE or DBMF?

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for CLSE.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.17%, compared with 0.76% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between CLSE and DBMF?

CLSE is categorized as Long-Short, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Convergence Investment Partners and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 1.52% for CLSE and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.66 vs 2.23), 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.