ELM vs. TBFC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) and TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ELM returned 19.20% vs 15.23% for TBFC. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ELM charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for TBFC.

Performance

ELM vs. TBFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ELM achieves a 7.63% return, which is significantly higher than TBFC's 5.77% return.

ELM

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 2.16%
• YTD: 7.63%
• 6M: 8.49%
• 1Y: 19.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFC

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 2.07%
• YTD: 5.77%
• 6M: 6.35%
• 1Y: 15.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ELM vs. TBFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	7.63%	11.89%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	5.77%	9.36%

Correlation

The correlation between ELM and TBFC is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2025	0.91

The correlation between ELM and TBFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

ELM vs. TBFC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ELM	TBFC
Technology	22.0%	21.1%
Financial Services	18.3%	18.0%
Industrials	12.6%	12.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	8.1%
Healthcare	8.3%	8.9%
Communication Services	6.6%	6.0%
Basic Materials	5.4%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	6.3%
Energy	4.8%	7.3%
Real Estate	4.7%	2.1%
Utilities	3.0%	3.8%

Return for Risk

ELM vs. TBFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

ELM

ELM Risk / Return Rank: 61
ELM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
ELM Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
ELM Omega Ratio Rank: 65
ELM Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
ELM Martin Ratio Rank: 60

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 71
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

ELM vs. TBFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). 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.

	ELM	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.41	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	3.44	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.46	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.57	2.81	-0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.64	11.86	-1.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ELM vs. TBFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ELM Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the TBFC Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ELM and TBFC, 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

	ELM	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.41	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	1.51	-0.01

Drawdowns

ELM vs. TBFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ELM drawdown since its inception was -9.02%, roughly equal to the maximum TBFC drawdown of -8.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ELM and TBFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ELM	TBFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.02%	-8.89%	-0.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.52%	-5.45%	-2.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-0.23%	-0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.32%	-1.06%	-0.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	1.29%	+0.52%

Volatility

ELM vs. TBFC - Volatility Comparison

Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) has a higher volatility of 2.51% compared to The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) at 2.06%. This indicates that ELM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TBFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ELM	TBFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.51%	2.06%	+0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.51%	5.24%	+2.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.36%	6.35%	+3.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.26%	7.14%	+3.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.26%	7.14%	+3.12%

ELM vs. TBFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ELM has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than TBFC's 0.44% expense ratio.

Dividends

ELM vs. TBFC - Dividend Comparison

ELM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, less than TBFC's 2.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	2.52%	2.71%	0.00%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.93%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ELM and TBFC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, ELM and TBFC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ELM or TBFC?

ELM has higher volatility (2.51%) compared to TBFC (2.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ELM dropped -9.02% vs TBFC's -8.89%.

Which ETF is better, ELM or TBFC?

On 1-year performance, ELM leads with 19.20% vs 15.23% for TBFC. On fees, ELM is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 2.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ELM or TBFC?

Over the 1-year period, ELM has performed better with a 19.20% return vs 15.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ELM or TBFC?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ELM or TBFC?

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 2.93%, compared with 2.52% for ELM.

What is the main difference between ELM and TBFC?

They also come from different issuers: Elm and Brinsmere. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for ELM and 0.44% for TBFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 2.06), 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.