DBMF vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DBMF returned 31.40% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

DBMF vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 12.42% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.63% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 2.35%
• YTD: 12.42%
• 6M: 14.20%
• 1Y: 31.40%
• 3Y*: 10.81%
• 5Y*: 8.46%
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DBMF vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	12.42%	13.85%	-8.55%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.63%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and CSHP is -0.08, 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	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	-0.02

DBMF vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DBMF	CSHP
Technology	29.8%	-
Healthcare	12.7%	-
Financial Services	12.5%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	-
Communication Services	8.6%	-
Industrials	8.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.1%	-
Energy	3.9%	-
Real Estate	2.5%	-
Utilities	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	2.2%	-

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 83
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	DBMF	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	11.91	-9.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	31.26	-27.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	7.44	-5.88
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.17	65.71	-60.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.07	432.16	-413.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DBMF vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and CSHP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DBMF	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.59	11.91	-9.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.77	10.75	-9.98

Drawdowns

DBMF vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-0.08%	-20.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-0.06%	-6.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.59%	-0.00%	-6.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	0.01%	+1.64%

Volatility

DBMF vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a higher volatility of 2.12% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that DBMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	0.07%	+2.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.76%	0.24%	+9.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.17%	0.33%	+11.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.52%	0.40%	+12.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	0.40%	+12.01%

DBMF vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBMF vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.09%, more than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.09%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and CSHP in my portfolio?

DBMF and CSHP have a correlation of -0.08, 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 CSHP?

DBMF has higher volatility (2.12%) compared to CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, DBMF or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, DBMF leads with 31.40% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DBMF or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 31.40% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DBMF or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.09%, compared with 3.92% for CSHP.

What is the main difference between DBMF and CSHP?

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.91 vs 2.59), 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.