DBMF vs. LQD
DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. DBMF is actively managed, while LQD is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.69%/yr vs -0.30%/yr for LQD. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LQD.
Performance
DBMF vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.63% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's 0.87% return.
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.82%
- 1M
- -0.55%
- YTD
- 10.63%
- 6M
- 10.35%
- 1Y
- 27.45%
- 3Y*
- 9.42%
- 5Y*
- 8.69%
- 10Y*
- —
LQD
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- 1.03%
- YTD
- 0.87%
- 6M
- 0.93%
- 1Y
- 5.51%
- 3Y*
- 4.97%
- 5Y*
- -0.30%
- 10Y*
- 2.54%
DBMF vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 10.63% | 13.85% | 7.24% | -8.94% | 21.61% | 11.49% | 1.80% | 10.51% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.87% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 9.86% |
Correlation
The correlation between DBMF and LQD is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.16 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | -0.15 |
The correlation between DBMF and LQD shifts across timeframes, from -0.32 (5 years) to 0.12 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
DBMF
LQD
DBMF vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). 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 | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.17 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.18 | +0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.54 | 1.68 | +2.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.23 | 4.72 | +11.52 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
DBMF vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and LQD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DBMF | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.39% | -24.95% | +4.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.10% | -3.34% | -2.76% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.60% | -8.43% | -7.17% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.39% | -24.95% | +4.56% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.95% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.59% | -3.32% | +1.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.55% | -3.99% | -2.56% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.70% | 1.19% | +0.51% |
Volatility
DBMF vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a higher volatility of 2.92% compared to iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) at 1.56%. This indicates that DBMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| DBMF | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.92% | 1.56% | +1.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.05% | 3.99% | +6.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.39% | 5.31% | +7.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.53% | 8.65% | +3.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.41% | 8.69% | +3.72% |
DBMF vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
DBMF vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.17%, more than LQD's 4.55% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.17% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.55% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
DBMF and LQD have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DBMF has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to LQD (1.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs LQD's -24.95%.
On 5-year performance, DBMF leads with 8.69% vs -0.30% for LQD. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 8.69% return vs -0.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.17%, compared with 4.55% for LQD.
DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while LQD is Corporate Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.15% for LQD.
DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.06), 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.
Find the right allocation for DBMF and LQD
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