DBMF vs. FLDB

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and FLDB (Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iMGP, while FLDB is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DBMF returned 26.64% vs 3.88% for FLDB. Their -0.09 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for FLDB.

Performance

DBMF vs. FLDB - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.40% return, which is significantly higher than FLDB's 2.00% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.16%
• 6M: 4.37%
• YTD: 10.40%
• 1Y: 26.64%
• 3Y*: 9.07%
• 5Y*: 8.60%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.04%

FLDB

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.23%
• 6M: 1.62%
• YTD: 2.00%
• 1Y: 3.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.54%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	$81.11M	$58.13M	$54.53M
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF	$631.19K	$448.14K	$374.12K

DBMF vs. FLDB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.40%	13.85%	1.45%
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF	2.00%	4.93%	4.11%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and FLDB is -0.13, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2024	-0.09

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. FLDB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 85
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 88

FLDB

FLDB Risk / Return Rank: 98
FLDB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Omega Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLDB Martin Ratio Rank: 99

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

DBMF vs. FLDB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB). 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	FLDB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	4.30	-2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	7.51	-4.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.98	-0.55
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.39	23.25	-18.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.73	84.55	-69.82

DBMF vs. FLDB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is lower than the FLDB Sharpe Ratio of 4.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and FLDB, 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. FLDB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, which is greater than FLDB's maximum drawdown of -0.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and FLDB.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	FLDB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-0.49%	-19.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-0.17%	-5.93%
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	-2.51%	-0.08%	-2.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.47%	-0.05%	-6.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	0.05%	+1.76%

Volatility

DBMF vs. FLDB - Volatility Comparison

iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a higher volatility of 2.19% compared to Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) at 0.24%. This indicates that DBMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	FLDB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.19%	0.24%	+1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.06%	0.63%	+8.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.68%	0.91%	+11.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.44%	1.29%	+11.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.35%	1.29%	+11.06%

DBMF vs. FLDB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

DBMF vs. FLDB - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.15%, more than FLDB's 4.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.15%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF	4.37%	4.72%	3.58%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and FLDB in my portfolio?

DBMF and FLDB have a correlation of -0.13, 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 FLDB?

DBMF has higher volatility (2.19%) compared to FLDB (0.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs FLDB's -0.49%.

Which ETF is better, DBMF or FLDB?

On 1-year performance, DBMF leads with 26.64% vs 3.88% for FLDB. On fees, FLDB is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, FLDB has been the lower-risk option at 0.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DBMF or FLDB?

Over the 1-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 26.64% return vs 3.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DBMF or FLDB?

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

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.15%, compared with 4.37% for FLDB.

What is the main difference between DBMF and FLDB?

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while FLDB is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iMGP and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.20% for FLDB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.30 vs 2.11), 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.