FFUT vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FFUT (Fidelity Managed Futures ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both Systematic Trend funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FFUT returned 18.91% vs 27.61% for DBMF. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FFUT charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

FFUT vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFUT achieves a 9.23% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.77% return.

FFUT

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: -2.34%
• YTD: 9.23%
• 6M: 9.36%
• 1Y: 18.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: -0.42%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 10.08%
• 1Y: 27.61%
• 3Y*: 9.24%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

FFUT vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	9.23%	8.58%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.77%	16.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FFUT and DBMF is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025	0.40

Return for Risk

FFUT vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFUT

FFUT Risk / Return Rank: 64
FFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 80

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 78
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 82
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FFUT vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT) 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.

	FFUT	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	2.24	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	2.94	-0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.47	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.77	4.55	+0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.04	16.25	-1.21

FFUT vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFUT Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFUT and DBMF, 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

FFUT vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFUT drawdown since its inception was -3.98%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFUT and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFUT	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.98%	-20.39%	+16.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.98%	-6.10%	+2.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.98%	-1.46%	-2.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.94%	-6.55%	+5.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.26%	1.70%	-0.44%

Volatility

FFUT vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) have volatilities of 2.92% and 2.85%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFUT	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	2.85%	+0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.96%	10.05%	-1.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.23%	12.42%	-1.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.03%	12.52%	-1.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.03%	12.40%	-1.37%

FFUT vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFUT has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFUT vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

FFUT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.91%, less than DBMF's 5.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.17%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	1.91%	2.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFUT and DBMF in my portfolio?

FFUT and DBMF have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFUT or DBMF?

FFUT has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to DBMF (2.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFUT dropped -3.98% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, FFUT or DBMF?

On 1-year performance, DBMF leads with 27.61% vs 18.91% for FFUT. On fees, FFUT is cheaper at 0.80% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFUT or DBMF?

Over the 1-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 27.61% return vs 18.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFUT or DBMF?

FFUT is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.17%, compared with 1.91% for FFUT.

What is the main difference between FFUT and DBMF?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FFUT and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.69), 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.