DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO
DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD). DBMF is actively managed, while CGL-C.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.01%/yr vs 16.71%/yr for CGL-C.TO. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
DBMF is traded in USD, while CGL-C.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CGL-C.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.27% return, which is significantly higher than CGL-C.TO's -2.68% return.
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- -1.34%
- YTD
- 10.27%
- 6M
- 11.24%
- 1Y
- 26.94%
- 3Y*
- 9.64%
- 5Y*
- 8.01%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- -0.00%
- 1M
- -10.30%
- YTD
- -2.68%
- 6M
- -2.36%
- 1Y
- 23.97%
- 3Y*
- 28.82%
- 5Y*
- 16.71%
- 10Y*
- 11.89%
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - 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% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | -2.58% | 62.99% | 26.68% | 12.82% | -0.22% | -4.80% | 24.71% | 16.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between DBMF and CGL-C.TO is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.09 |
Over the past year, DBMF and CGL-C.TO have become more correlated (0.35) than their long-term average of 0.09, 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. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
DBMF
CGL-C.TO
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO). 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 | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.64 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.19 | +0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.50 | 0.99 | +3.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.30 | 2.87 | +13.43 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -42.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DBMF | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.39% | -42.11% | +21.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.10% | -24.32% | +18.22% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.60% | -24.32% | +8.72% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.39% | -24.32% | +3.93% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.32% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.91% | -21.86% | +19.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.56% | -18.51% | +11.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.68% | 8.37% | -6.69% |
Volatility
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.71%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a volatility of 7.57%. This indicates that DBMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGL-C.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| DBMF | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.71% | 7.57% | -4.86% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.00% | 22.90% | -12.90% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.35% | 26.70% | -14.35% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.55% | 18.22% | -5.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.41% | 16.73% | -4.32% |
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
DBMF vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%, while CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.19% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% |
Frequently Asked Questions
DBMF and CGL-C.TO 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.
On fees, CGL-C.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while CGL-C.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for DBMF and CGL-C.TO
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