DBMF vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. DBMF is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.18%/yr vs 8.41%/yr for QYLD. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

DBMF vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBMF achieves a 10.48% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 8.36% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -1.12%
• YTD: 10.48%
• 6M: 11.61%
• 1Y: 27.18%
• 3Y*: 9.37%
• 5Y*: 8.18%
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 8.36%
• 6M: 10.14%
• 1Y: 23.80%
• 3Y*: 13.95%
• 5Y*: 8.41%
• 10Y*: 9.92%

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

DBMF vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.48%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	8.36%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	10.41%	8.72%	11.46%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and QYLD is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	0.15

Over the past year, DBMF and QYLD have become more correlated (0.37) than their long-term average of 0.15, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 82
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 86

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 91
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 93
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). 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	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.61	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	3.62	-0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.58	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.48	4.81	-0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.18	27.11	-10.92

DBMF vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF and QYLD, 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. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-24.75%	+4.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-4.97%	-1.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-19.06%	+3.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	-24.61%	+4.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-24.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.72%	0.00%	-1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.56%	-3.83%	-2.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.68%	0.88%	+0.80%

Volatility

DBMF vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.68%, while Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a volatility of 3.87%. This indicates that DBMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBMF	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.68%	3.87%	-1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.00%	7.86%	+2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.37%	9.19%	+3.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.55%	14.77%	-2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	15.53%	-3.12%

DBMF vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBMF vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.18%, less than QYLD's 11.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.18%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.41%	11.55%	12.50%	11.78%	13.75%	12.85%	11.16%	9.84%	12.44%	7.69%	9.15%	9.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBMF and QYLD in my portfolio?

DBMF and QYLD have a correlation of 0.37, 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 QYLD?

QYLD has higher volatility (3.87%) compared to DBMF (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBMF dropped -20.39% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, DBMF or QYLD?

On 5-year performance, QYLD leads with 8.41% vs 8.18% for DBMF. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DBMF or QYLD?

Over the 5-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 8.41% return vs 8.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DBMF or QYLD?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.41%, compared with 5.18% for DBMF.

What is the main difference between DBMF and QYLD?

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 2.21), 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.