DBMF vs. COST

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) is Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.01%/yr vs 22.12%/yr for COST. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

DBMF vs. COST - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.27% return, which is significantly lower than COST's 14.24% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -1.34%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 11.24%
• 1Y: 26.94%
• 3Y*: 9.64%
• 5Y*: 8.01%
• 10Y*: —

COST

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -6.35%
• YTD: 14.24%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: -0.24%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 22.12%
• 10Y*: 22.27%

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

DBMF vs. COST - 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%
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	14.24%	-5.39%	39.62%	49.00%	-19.05%	51.82%	32.67%	23.24%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and COST is 0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.11
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	0.07

The correlation between DBMF and COST shifts across timeframes, from -0.00 (5 years) to 0.11 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. COST — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 84
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

COST

COST Risk / Return Rank: 37
COST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
COST Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
COST Omega Ratio Rank: 32
COST Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
COST Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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. COST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). 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	COST	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	-0.08	+2.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	0.02	+2.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.00	+0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.50	-0.10	+4.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.30	-0.22	+16.52

DBMF vs. COST - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is higher than the COST Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and COST, 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. COST - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum COST drawdown of -53.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and COST.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	COST	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-53.39%	+33.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-15.14%	+9.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-20.74%	+5.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	-31.40%	+11.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.91%	-10.23%	+8.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.56%	-13.36%	+6.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.68%	6.67%	-4.99%

Volatility

DBMF vs. COST - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.71%, while Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) has a volatility of 7.44%. This indicates that DBMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	COST	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.71%	7.44%	-4.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.00%	14.53%	-4.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.35%	18.80%	-6.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.55%	22.72%	-10.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	21.95%	-9.54%

Dividends

DBMF vs. COST - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%, more than COST's 0.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	0.55%	0.59%	0.49%	2.87%	0.76%	0.54%	3.38%	0.86%	1.08%	4.81%	1.09%	4.06%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.19%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and COST in my portfolio?

DBMF and COST have a correlation of 0.04, 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 COST?

COST has higher volatility (7.44%) compared to DBMF (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs COST's -53.39%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

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.