CTA vs. HFGM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CTA (Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and HFGM (Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CTA is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Simplify, while HFGM is a Macro Trading fund actively managed by Unlimited. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CTA returned 13.86% vs 36.91% for HFGM. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CTA charges 0.78%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for HFGM.

Performance

CTA vs. HFGM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) and Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CTA achieves a 10.72% return, which is significantly lower than HFGM's 13.73% return.

CTA

• 1D: -1.40%
• 1M: -8.08%
• YTD: 10.72%
• 6M: 12.41%
• 1Y: 13.86%
• 3Y*: 11.34%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HFGM

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -2.24%
• YTD: 13.73%
• 6M: 13.65%
• 1Y: 36.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CTA vs. HFGM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.72%	0.40%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	13.73%	26.63%

Correlation

The correlation between CTA and HFGM is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2025	0.23

Return for Risk

CTA vs. HFGM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CTA

CTA Risk / Return Rank: 23
CTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
CTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
CTA Omega Ratio Rank: 22
CTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
CTA Martin Ratio Rank: 25

HFGM

HFGM Risk / Return Rank: 53
HFGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
HFGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
HFGM Omega Ratio Rank: 47
HFGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
HFGM Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

CTA vs. HFGM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) and Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM). 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.

	CTA	HFGM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	1.64	-0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	2.21	-1.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.29	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.26	3.48	-2.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.28	9.32	-6.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CTA vs. HFGM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTA Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the HFGM Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTA and HFGM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CTA	HFGM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69	1.64	-0.95
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	1.75	-1.16

Drawdowns

CTA vs. HFGM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CTA drawdown since its inception was -18.07%, which is greater than HFGM's maximum drawdown of -10.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTA and HFGM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CTA	HFGM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.07%	-10.66%	-7.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.00%	-10.66%	-0.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.15%	-6.29%	-2.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.68%	-2.69%	-2.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.23%	3.97%	+0.26%

Volatility

CTA vs. HFGM - Volatility Comparison

Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) has a higher volatility of 7.79% compared to Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) at 4.36%. This indicates that CTA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HFGM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CTA	HFGM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.79%	4.36%	+3.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.37%	17.44%	-0.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.17%	22.58%	-2.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	21.74%	-5.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.59%	21.74%	-5.15%

CTA vs. HFGM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CTA has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is lower than HFGM's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CTA vs. HFGM - Dividend Comparison

CTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.92%, less than HFGM's 9.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	4.92%	3.19%	4.80%	7.78%	6.58%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	9.88%	11.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CTA and HFGM in my portfolio?

CTA and HFGM have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CTA or HFGM?

CTA has higher volatility (7.79%) compared to HFGM (4.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CTA dropped -18.07% vs HFGM's -10.66%.

Which ETF is better, CTA or HFGM?

On 1-year performance, HFGM leads with 36.91% vs 13.86% for CTA. On fees, CTA is cheaper at 0.78% per year. On volatility, HFGM has been the lower-risk option at 4.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CTA or HFGM?

Over the 1-year period, HFGM has performed better with a 36.91% return vs 13.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CTA or HFGM?

CTA is cheaper with a 0.78% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for HFGM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CTA or HFGM?

HFGM has the higher dividend yield at 9.88%, compared with 4.92% for CTA.

What is the main difference between CTA and HFGM?

CTA is categorized as Systematic Trend, while HFGM is Macro Trading. They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Unlimited. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for CTA and 0.95% for HFGM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HFGM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 0.69), 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.