DBMF vs. CLSE

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, DBMF returned 9.42%/yr vs 31.66%/yr for CLSE. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.52%/yr for CLSE.

Performance

DBMF vs. CLSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.63% return, which is significantly lower than CLSE's 25.06% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: -0.61%
• YTD: 10.63%
• 6M: 10.35%
• 1Y: 27.45%
• 3Y*: 9.42%
• 5Y*: 8.69%
• 10Y*: —

CLSE

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 3.61%
• YTD: 25.06%
• 6M: 24.84%
• 1Y: 50.50%
• 3Y*: 31.66%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DBMF vs. CLSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.63%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	20.19%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.06%	20.44%	35.54%	17.54%	-4.38%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and CLSE is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2022	0.15

The correlation between DBMF and CLSE shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (all time) to 0.29 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. CLSE — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 79
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 94
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. CLSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). 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	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	3.66	-1.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	4.92	-1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.64	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.54	10.26	-5.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.23	37.35	-21.12

DBMF vs. CLSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is lower than the CLSE Sharpe Ratio of 3.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and CLSE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

DBMF vs. CLSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, which is greater than CLSE's maximum drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and CLSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	CLSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-16.45%	-3.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-4.85%	-1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-16.45%	+0.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.59%	-0.78%	-0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.55%	-3.57%	-2.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.70%	1.33%	+0.37%

Volatility

DBMF vs. CLSE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.92%, while Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) has a volatility of 4.02%. This indicates that DBMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	CLSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	4.02%	-1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.05%	10.55%	-0.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.39%	13.61%	-1.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.53%	13.91%	-1.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	13.91%	-1.50%

DBMF vs. CLSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSE's 1.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBMF vs. CLSE - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.17%, more than CLSE's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.17%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and CLSE in my portfolio?

DBMF and CLSE have a correlation of 0.29, 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 CLSE?

CLSE has higher volatility (4.02%) compared to DBMF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs CLSE's -16.45%.

Which ETF is better, DBMF or CLSE?

On 3-year performance, CLSE leads with 31.66% vs 9.42% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DBMF or CLSE?

Over the 3-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 31.66% return vs 9.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DBMF or CLSE?

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for CLSE.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.17%, compared with 0.76% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between DBMF and CLSE?

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while CLSE is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and Convergence Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 1.52% for CLSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.66 vs 2.23), 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.