DBMF vs. BILS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and BILS (SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while BILS is a Ultrashort Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg 3-12 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. DBMF is actively managed, while BILS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.46%/yr vs 3.29%/yr for BILS. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BILS.

Performance

DBMF vs. BILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 12.42% return, which is significantly higher than BILS's 1.40% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 2.35%
• YTD: 12.42%
• 6M: 14.20%
• 1Y: 31.40%
• 3Y*: 10.81%
• 5Y*: 8.46%
• 10Y*: —

BILS

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

DBMF vs. BILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	12.42%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	5.87%
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	1.40%	4.23%	5.17%	4.92%	0.90%	-0.08%	0.00%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and BILS is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2020	-0.15

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. BILS — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 83
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BILS

BILS Risk / Return Rank: 100
BILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

DBMF vs. BILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). 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.

	DBMF	BILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	16.80	-14.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	100.82	-97.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	42.08	-40.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.17	129.91	-124.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.07	1,442.41	-1,423.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DBMF vs. BILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is lower than the BILS Sharpe Ratio of 16.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and BILS, 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

	DBMF	BILS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.59	16.80	-14.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68	10.79	-10.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.77	9.79	-9.02

Drawdowns

DBMF vs. BILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, which is greater than BILS's maximum drawdown of -0.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and BILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	BILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-0.41%	-19.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-0.03%	-6.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-0.04%	-15.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	-0.38%	-20.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.01%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.59%	-0.04%	-6.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	0.00%	+1.65%

Volatility

DBMF vs. BILS - Volatility Comparison

iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a higher volatility of 2.12% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) at 0.06%. This indicates that DBMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	BILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	0.06%	+2.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.76%	0.14%	+9.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.17%	0.23%	+11.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.52%	0.31%	+12.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	0.30%	+12.11%

DBMF vs. BILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BILS's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBMF vs. BILS - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.09%, more than BILS's 3.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	3.81%	4.08%	5.01%	4.98%	1.61%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.09%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and BILS in my portfolio?

DBMF and BILS 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, DBMF or BILS?

DBMF has higher volatility (2.12%) compared to BILS (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs BILS's -0.41%.

Which ETF is better, DBMF or BILS?

On 5-year performance, DBMF leads with 8.46% vs 3.29% for BILS. On fees, BILS is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DBMF or BILS?

Over the 5-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 8.46% return vs 3.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DBMF or BILS?

BILS is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.09%, compared with 3.81% for BILS.

What is the main difference between DBMF and BILS?

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while BILS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.14% for BILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.80 vs 2.59), 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.