ELM vs. TBFG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) and TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ELM returned 19.20% vs 24.15% for TBFG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ELM charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for TBFG.

Performance

ELM vs. TBFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). 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 lower than TBFG's 10.44% return.

ELM

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

TBFG

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 10.44%
• 6M: 11.28%
• 1Y: 24.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ELM vs. TBFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	7.63%	11.89%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	10.44%	11.22%

Correlation

The correlation between ELM and TBFG is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2025	0.92

The correlation between ELM and TBFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

ELM vs. TBFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ELM	TBFG
Technology	22.0%	21.5%
Financial Services	18.3%	17.7%
Industrials	12.6%	13.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	8.4%
Healthcare	8.3%	8.3%
Communication Services	6.6%	6.0%
Basic Materials	5.4%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	5.8%
Energy	4.8%	7.0%
Real Estate	4.7%	2.4%
Utilities	3.0%	3.4%

Return for Risk

ELM vs. TBFG — 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

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. TBFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). 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	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.49	-0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	3.49	-0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.46	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.57	3.18	-0.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.64	13.74	-3.10
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. TBFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ELM Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the TBFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ELM and TBFG, 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	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.49	-0.43
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	1.39	+0.11

Drawdowns

ELM vs. TBFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ELM drawdown since its inception was -9.02%, smaller than the maximum TBFG drawdown of -13.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ELM and TBFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ELM	TBFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.02%	-13.43%	+4.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.52%	-7.63%	+0.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-0.28%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.32%	-1.62%	+0.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	1.76%	+0.05%

Volatility

ELM vs. TBFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) is 2.51%, while The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a volatility of 2.91%. This indicates that ELM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TBFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ELM	TBFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.51%	2.91%	-0.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.51%	8.00%	-0.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.36%	9.73%	-0.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.26%	10.94%	-0.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.26%	10.94%	-0.68%

ELM vs. TBFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ELM has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than TBFG's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

ELM vs. TBFG - Dividend Comparison

ELM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, more than TBFG's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	2.52%	2.71%	0.00%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.35%	2.65%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ELM and TBFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, ELM and TBFG 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 TBFG?

TBFG has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to ELM (2.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ELM dropped -9.02% vs TBFG's -13.43%.

Which ETF is better, ELM or TBFG?

On 1-year performance, TBFG leads with 24.15% vs 19.20% for ELM. On fees, ELM is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, ELM has been the lower-risk option at 2.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ELM or TBFG?

Over the 1-year period, TBFG has performed better with a 24.15% return vs 19.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ELM or TBFG?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for TBFG.

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

ELM has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 2.35% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between ELM and TBFG?

They also come from different issuers: Elm and The Brinsmere Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for ELM and 0.42% for TBFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 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.