EMIM.L vs. DBMF
EMIM.L (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMIM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. EMIM.L is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMIM.L returned 8.57%/yr vs 9.12%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMIM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.
Performance
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
EMIM.L is traded in GBp, while DBMF is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the DBMF values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMIM.L achieves a 22.83% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 10.83% return.
EMIM.L
- 1D
- 2.84%
- 1M
- 1.03%
- YTD
- 22.83%
- 6M
- 25.36%
- 1Y
- 46.92%
- 3Y*
- 19.09%
- 5Y*
- 8.57%
- 10Y*
- 11.13%
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.35%
- 1M
- -1.37%
- YTD
- 10.83%
- 6M
- 10.97%
- 1Y
- 28.52%
- 3Y*
- 7.43%
- 5Y*
- 9.12%
- 10Y*
- —
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMIM.L iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 22.83% | 23.35% | 9.18% | 4.93% | -10.17% | 0.74% | 14.91% | 6.97% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 10.83% | 5.74% | 9.12% | -13.49% | 36.07% | 12.55% | -1.19% | 8.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMIM.L and DBMF is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.17 |
The correlation between EMIM.L and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.12 (5 years) to 0.26 (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
EMIM.L vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank
EMIM.L
DBMF
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). 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.
| EMIM.L | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 1.48 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.09 | 5.12 | -1.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.02 | 18.66 | -4.64 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, roughly equal to the maximum DBMF drawdown of -31.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and DBMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMIM.L | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.70% | -31.56% | -0.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.92% | -5.76% | -5.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.56% | -18.85% | +3.29% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.98% | -31.56% | +9.58% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.46% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.48% | -10.91% | +7.43% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.70% | -14.59% | +5.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.20% | 1.58% | +1.62% |
Volatility
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) has a higher volatility of 7.38% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.86%. This indicates that EMIM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMIM.L | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.38% | 2.86% | +4.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.94% | 10.11% | +4.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.33% | 12.70% | +4.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.97% | 16.35% | -0.38% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.86% | 15.75% | +2.11% |
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMIM.L vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison
EMIM.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.19% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% |
EMIM.L iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMIM.L and DBMF have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EMIM.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMIM.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
EMIM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: iShares and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.85% for DBMF.
Find the right allocation for EMIM.L and DBMF
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