DBMF vs. FFUT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and FFUT (Fidelity Managed Futures ETF) are both Systematic Trend funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFUT.

Performance

DBMF vs. FFUT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with DBMF having a 12.42% return and FFUT slightly higher at 12.74%.

DBMF

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

FFUT

• 1D: -0.90%
• 1M: 1.16%
• YTD: 12.74%
• 6M: 14.35%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DBMF vs. FFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	12.42%	16.52%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	12.74%	8.26%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and FFUT is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2025	0.40

DBMF vs. FFUT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DBMF	FFUT
Technology	29.8%	65.3%
Healthcare	12.7%	4.2%
Financial Services	12.5%	7.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	5.2%
Communication Services	8.6%	5.4%
Industrials	8.4%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.1%	2.4%
Energy	3.9%	2.0%
Real Estate	2.5%	0.9%
Utilities	2.3%	1.7%
Basic Materials	2.2%	0.9%

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. FFUT — 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

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. FFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). 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	FFUT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.17	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.07	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DBMF	FFUT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.59	—	—
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	2.01	-1.23

Drawdowns

DBMF vs. FFUT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, which is greater than FFUT's maximum drawdown of -2.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and FFUT.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	FFUT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-2.84%	-17.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	—	—
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%	-0.90%	+0.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.59%	-0.88%	-5.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	FFUT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.76%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.17%	11.17%	+1.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.52%	11.17%	+1.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	11.17%	+1.24%

DBMF vs. FFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FFUT's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBMF vs. FFUT - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.09%, more than FFUT's 1.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.09%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	1.85%	2.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and FFUT in my portfolio?

DBMF and FFUT have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DBMF or FFUT?

On fees, FFUT is cheaper at 0.80% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, DBMF or FFUT?

FFUT is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.09%, compared with 1.85% for FFUT.

What is the main difference between DBMF and FFUT?

They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.80% for FFUT.