COWZ vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

COWZ (Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - COWZ is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Cash Cows 100 Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. COWZ is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, COWZ returned 10.13%/yr vs 8.01%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. COWZ charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

COWZ vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) 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, COWZ achieves a 6.93% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.27% return.

COWZ

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 1.92%
• YTD: 6.93%
• 6M: 6.01%
• 1Y: 19.20%
• 3Y*: 13.01%
• 5Y*: 10.13%
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -1.31%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 11.24%
• 1Y: 26.94%
• 3Y*: 9.64%
• 5Y*: 8.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

COWZ vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
COWZ Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF	6.93%	8.98%	10.64%	14.73%	0.19%	42.57%	11.65%	8.88%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.27%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between COWZ 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	0.23
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	0.15

The correlation between COWZ and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.12 (5 years) to 0.29 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

COWZ vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

COWZ

COWZ Risk / Return Rank: 62
COWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
COWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
COWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 52
COWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
COWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 62

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 84
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
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.

COWZ vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) 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.

	COWZ	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	2.22	-0.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	2.92	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.47	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.65	4.50	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.73	16.30	-6.57

COWZ vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COWZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COWZ 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

COWZ vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COWZ drawdown since its inception was -38.63%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COWZ and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	COWZ	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.63%	-20.39%	-18.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.00%	-6.10%	+1.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.00%	-15.60%	-6.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.00%	-20.39%	-1.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.05%	-1.91%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.80%	-6.56%	+1.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	1.68%	+0.20%

Volatility

COWZ vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) has a higher volatility of 3.27% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.71%. This indicates that COWZ'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

	COWZ	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.27%	2.71%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.20%	10.00%	-2.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.19%	12.35%	-1.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.64%	12.55%	+5.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.91%	12.41%	+7.50%

COWZ vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

COWZ has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

COWZ vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

COWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%, less than DBMF's 5.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
COWZ Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF	1.93%	2.19%	1.82%	1.92%	1.96%	1.48%	2.54%	1.96%	1.67%	1.95%	0.13%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.19%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COWZ and DBMF in my portfolio?

COWZ 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, COWZ or DBMF?

COWZ has higher volatility (3.27%) compared to DBMF (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COWZ dropped -38.63% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, COWZ or DBMF?

On 5-year performance, COWZ leads with 10.13% vs 8.01% for DBMF. On fees, COWZ is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, COWZ or DBMF?

Over the 5-year period, COWZ has performed better with a 10.13% return vs 8.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, COWZ or DBMF?

COWZ is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.19%, compared with 1.93% for COWZ.

What is the main difference between COWZ and DBMF?

COWZ is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for COWZ and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.63), 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.