PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
DBMF vs. FTGC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

DBMF vs. FTGC - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.27% return, which is significantly lower than FTGC's 21.85% return.


DBMF

1D
0.26%
1M
-1.31%
YTD
10.27%
6M
11.24%
1Y
26.94%
3Y*
9.64%
5Y*
8.01%
10Y*

FTGC

1D
-0.10%
1M
-6.23%
YTD
21.85%
6M
22.43%
1Y
30.18%
3Y*
15.83%
5Y*
12.04%
10Y*
7.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DBMF vs. FTGC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
10.27%13.85%7.24%-8.94%21.61%11.49%1.80%10.51%
FTGC
First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund
21.85%14.61%9.96%-5.36%17.36%27.95%2.17%4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and FTGC is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.44

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.32

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.24

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019

0.23

Over the past year, DBMF and FTGC have become more correlated (0.44) than their long-term average of 0.23, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

DBMF vs. FTGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF
DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank

FTGC
FTGC Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
FTGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTGC Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
FTGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTGC Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
Martin Ratio Rank
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. FTGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC). 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.


DBMFFTGCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.37

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.50

3.82

+0.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.30

12.11

+4.20

DBMF vs. FTGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the FTGC Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and FTGC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

DBMF vs. FTGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum FTGC drawdown of -59.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and FTGC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


DBMFFTGCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.39%

-59.47%

+39.08%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.10%

-8.63%

+2.53%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.60%

-10.39%

-5.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.39%

-22.64%

+2.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.91%

-8.63%

+6.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.56%

-27.37%

+20.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.68%

2.71%

-1.03%

Volatility

DBMF vs. FTGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.71%, while First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC) has a volatility of 3.63%. This indicates that DBMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


DBMFFTGCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.71%

3.63%

-0.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.00%

13.30%

-3.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.35%

15.78%

-3.43%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.55%

15.97%

-3.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.41%

14.72%

-2.31%

DBMF vs. FTGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than FTGC's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

DBMF vs. FTGC - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%, less than FTGC's 15.73% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
FTGC
First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund
15.73%17.74%3.05%3.34%10.35%7.21%0.00%0.81%0.80%1.21%

Frequently Asked Questions


DBMF and FTGC have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FTGC has higher volatility (3.63%) compared to DBMF (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs FTGC's -59.47%.

On 5-year performance, FTGC leads with 12.04% vs 8.01% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FTGC has performed better with a 12.04% return vs 8.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FTGC.

FTGC has the higher dividend yield at 15.73%, compared with 5.19% for DBMF.

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while FTGC is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.95% for FTGC.

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 2.09), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DBMF and FTGC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer