DGZ vs. ISMF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DGZ (DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes) and ISMF (iShares Managed Futures Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DGZ is a Inverse Commodities fund tracking the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index - Optimum Yield Gold Excess Return (-100%), while ISMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iShares. DGZ is passively managed, while ISMF is actively managed. Over the past year, DGZ returned -15.32% vs 22.64% for ISMF. At a correlation of -0.32, they often move in opposite directions. DGZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for ISMF.

Performance

DGZ vs. ISMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes (DGZ) and iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DGZ achieves a 2.71% return, which is significantly lower than ISMF's 8.37% return.

DGZ

• 1D: 4.82%
• 1M: 16.59%
• YTD: 2.71%
• 6M: 4.61%
• 1Y: -15.32%
• 3Y*: -16.62%
• 5Y*: -10.05%
• 10Y*: -8.68%

ISMF

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 8.37%
• 6M: 11.16%
• 1Y: 22.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DGZ vs. ISMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DGZ DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes	2.71%	-25.85%
ISMF iShares Managed Futures Active ETF	8.37%	11.58%

Correlation

The correlation between DGZ and ISMF is -0.35, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 14, 2025	-0.32

Return for Risk

DGZ vs. ISMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

DGZ

DGZ Risk / Return Rank: 7
DGZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
DGZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
DGZ Omega Ratio Rank: 8
DGZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
DGZ Martin Ratio Rank: 5

ISMF

ISMF Risk / Return Rank: 89
ISMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
ISMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
ISMF Omega Ratio Rank: 91
ISMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
ISMF Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

DGZ vs. ISMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes (DGZ) and iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF). 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.

	DGZ	ISMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.23	2.88	-3.11
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.11	3.91	-3.80
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.61	-0.60
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.40	5.77	-6.17
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.70	19.96	-20.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DGZ vs. ISMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DGZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.23, which is lower than the ISMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DGZ and ISMF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DGZ	ISMF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.23	2.88	-3.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.29	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.32	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.31	2.17	-2.49

Drawdowns

DGZ vs. ISMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DGZ drawdown since its inception was -86.32%, which is greater than ISMF's maximum drawdown of -4.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DGZ and ISMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	DGZ	ISMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.32%	-4.23%	-82.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-38.32%	-3.94%	-34.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-59.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-71.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-82.41%	0.00%	-82.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.74%	-1.27%	-56.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	21.80%	1.14%	+20.66%

Volatility

DGZ vs. ISMF - Volatility Comparison

DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes (DGZ) has a higher volatility of 45.00% compared to iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) at 1.89%. This indicates that DGZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DGZ	ISMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	45.00%	1.89%	+43.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	54.96%	6.33%	+48.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	66.38%	7.92%	+58.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.24%	7.78%	+27.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.40%	7.78%	+19.62%

DGZ vs. ISMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

DGZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than ISMF's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

DGZ vs. ISMF - Dividend Comparison

DGZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ISMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.75%.

Position	TTM	2025
DGZ DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes	0.00%	0.00%
ISMF iShares Managed Futures Active ETF	5.75%	6.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DGZ and ISMF in my portfolio?

DGZ and ISMF have a correlation of -0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DGZ or ISMF?

DGZ has higher volatility (45.00%) compared to ISMF (1.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DGZ dropped -86.32% vs ISMF's -4.23%.

Which ETF is better, DGZ or ISMF?

On 1-year performance, ISMF leads with 22.64% vs -15.32% for DGZ. On fees, DGZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, ISMF has been the lower-risk option at 1.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DGZ or ISMF?

Over the 1-year period, ISMF has performed better with a 22.64% return vs -15.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DGZ or ISMF?

DGZ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for ISMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DGZ or ISMF?

ISMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.75%, compared with 0.00% for DGZ.

What is the main difference between DGZ and ISMF?

DGZ is categorized as Inverse Commodities, while ISMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Deutsche Bank and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for DGZ and 0.80% for ISMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ISMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.88 vs -0.23), 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.