PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
DBMF vs. BUFR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

DBMF vs. BUFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 12.95% return, which is significantly higher than BUFR's 6.48% return.


DBMF

1D
-0.25%
1M
3.44%
6M
7.95%
YTD
12.95%
1Y
27.97%
3Y*
10.07%
5Y*
8.70%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
9.43%

BUFR

1D
0.03%
1M
0.77%
6M
5.68%
YTD
6.48%
1Y
12.42%
3Y*
12.65%
5Y*
9.55%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
10.49%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$41.80M$42.66M$45.08M
$48.88M$50.74M$48.74M

DBMF vs. BUFR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
12.95%13.85%7.24%-8.94%21.61%11.49%0.51%
BUFR
FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF
6.48%12.44%14.68%19.63%-7.57%11.88%6.60%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and BUFR is 0.35, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.35

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.26

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.07

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 11, 2020

0.13

Over the past year, DBMF and BUFR have become more correlated (0.35) than their long-term average of 0.13, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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. BUFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF
DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank

BUFR
BUFR Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
BUFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BUFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
BUFR Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
BUFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
BUFR Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
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. BUFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR). 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.


DBMFBUFRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.45

1.37

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.59

2.78

+1.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.59

14.53

+1.06

DBMF vs. BUFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the BUFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and BUFR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

DBMF vs. BUFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, which is greater than BUFR's maximum drawdown of -13.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and BUFR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


DBMFBUFRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.39%

-13.73%

-6.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.10%

-4.61%

-1.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.60%

-12.81%

-2.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.39%

-13.73%

-6.66%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.25%

-0.90%

+0.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.49%

-2.05%

-4.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.79%

0.88%

+0.91%

Volatility

DBMF vs. BUFR - Volatility Comparison

iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a higher volatility of 2.42% compared to FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF (BUFR) at 1.58%. This indicates that DBMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


DBMFBUFRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.42%

1.58%

+0.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.96%

5.26%

+4.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.66%

6.66%

+6.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.43%

10.47%

+1.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.37%

10.16%

+2.21%

DBMF vs. BUFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFR's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

DBMF vs. BUFR - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.03%, while BUFR has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
BUFR
FT Vest Laddered Buffer ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
5.03%5.91%5.75%2.91%7.72%10.38%0.86%9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions


DBMF and BUFR have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DBMF has higher volatility (2.42%) compared to BUFR (1.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs BUFR's -13.73%.

On 5-year performance, BUFR leads with 9.55% vs 8.70% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, BUFR has been the lower-risk option at 1.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BUFR has performed better with a 9.55% return vs 8.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BUFR.

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.03%, compared with 0.00% for BUFR.

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while BUFR is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.95% for BUFR.

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.92), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DBMF and BUFR

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