DBMF vs. BOC
DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) is Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while BOC (Boston Omaha Corp) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.01%/yr vs -16.42%/yr for BOC. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
DBMF vs. BOC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with DBMF having a 10.27% return and BOC slightly lower at 10.02%.
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- -1.31%
- YTD
- 10.27%
- 6M
- 11.24%
- 1Y
- 26.94%
- 3Y*
- 9.64%
- 5Y*
- 8.01%
- 10Y*
- —
BOC
- 1D
- 1.80%
- 1M
- 23.06%
- YTD
- 10.02%
- 6M
- 0.52%
- 1Y
- -2.99%
- 3Y*
- -11.81%
- 5Y*
- -16.42%
- 10Y*
- —
DBMF vs. BOC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 10.27% | 13.85% | 7.24% | -8.94% | 21.61% | 11.49% | 1.80% | 10.51% |
BOC Boston Omaha Corp | 10.02% | -12.76% | -9.85% | -40.64% | -7.76% | 3.91% | 31.42% | -19.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between DBMF and BOC is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.05 |
The correlation between DBMF and BOC shifts across timeframes, from -0.00 (5 years) to 0.16 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
DBMF vs. BOC — Risk / Return Rank
DBMF
BOC
DBMF vs. BOC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Boston Omaha Corp (BOC). 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.
| DBMF | BOC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.30 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.80 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.02 | +0.45 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.50 | -0.11 | +4.61 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.30 | -0.22 | +16.52 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
DBMF vs. BOC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum BOC drawdown of -76.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and BOC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DBMF | BOC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.39% | -76.58% | +56.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.10% | -23.46% | +17.36% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.60% | -43.43% | +27.83% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.39% | -74.13% | +53.74% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.91% | -71.18% | +69.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.56% | -46.11% | +39.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.68% | 11.87% | -10.19% |
Volatility
DBMF vs. BOC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.71%, while Boston Omaha Corp (BOC) has a volatility of 15.59%. This indicates that DBMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BOC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| DBMF | BOC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.71% | 15.59% | -12.88% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.00% | 22.81% | -12.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.35% | 32.33% | -19.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.55% | 35.20% | -22.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.41% | 42.82% | -30.41% |
Dividends
DBMF vs. BOC - Dividend Comparison
DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%, while BOC has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOC Boston Omaha Corp | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.19% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% |
Frequently Asked Questions
DBMF and BOC have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BOC has higher volatility (15.59%) compared to DBMF (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs BOC's -76.58%.
DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs -0.08), 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.
Find the right allocation for DBMF and BOC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer