PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GDMA vs. DBMF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GDMA vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDMA achieves a 11.18% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 12.42% return.


GDMA

1D
0.30%
1M
1.83%
YTD
11.18%
6M
14.08%
1Y
32.26%
3Y*
16.91%
5Y*
7.66%
10Y*

DBMF

1D
0.03%
1M
2.35%
YTD
12.42%
6M
14.20%
1Y
31.40%
3Y*
10.81%
5Y*
8.46%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GDMA vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
GDMA
Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF
11.18%25.29%7.44%1.72%-2.08%3.95%21.08%8.15%
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
12.42%13.85%7.24%-8.94%21.61%11.49%1.80%10.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GDMA and DBMF is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.53

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2019

0.44

The correlation between GDMA and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (5 years) to 0.53 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GDMA vs. DBMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GDMA
DBMF

Technology

23.4%
29.8%

Financial Services

14.5%
12.5%

Industrials

14.4%
8.4%

Energy

10.0%
3.9%

Basic Materials

9.0%
2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
11.0%

Communication Services

7.0%
8.6%

Healthcare

5.5%
12.7%

Consumer Defensive

3.5%
6.1%

Utilities

2.4%
2.3%

Real Estate

1.6%
2.5%

Technology

GDMA
23.4%
DBMF
29.8%

Financial Services

GDMA
14.5%
DBMF
12.5%

Industrials

GDMA
14.4%
DBMF
8.4%

Energy

GDMA
10.0%
DBMF
3.9%

Basic Materials

GDMA
9.0%
DBMF
2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

GDMA
8.8%
DBMF
11.0%

Communication Services

GDMA
7.0%
DBMF
8.6%

Healthcare

GDMA
5.5%
DBMF
12.7%

Consumer Defensive

GDMA
3.5%
DBMF
6.1%

Utilities

GDMA
2.4%
DBMF
2.3%

Real Estate

GDMA
1.6%
DBMF
2.5%

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

GDMA vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDMA
GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank

DBMF
DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GDMA vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) 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.


GDMADBMFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.55

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.30

5.17

-0.87

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.92

19.07

-7.15

GDMA vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDMA 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GDMADBMFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.47

2.59

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.80

0.68

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.89

0.77

+0.11

Drawdowns

GDMA vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDMA drawdown since its inception was -16.66%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDMA and DBMF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GDMADBMFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.66%

-20.39%

+3.73%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.53%

-6.10%

-1.43%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.53%

-15.60%

+8.07%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-12.74%

-20.39%

+7.65%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.06%

0.00%

-1.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.78%

-6.59%

+2.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.71%

1.65%

+1.06%

Volatility

GDMA vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a higher volatility of 6.18% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.12%. This indicates that GDMA'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


GDMADBMFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.18%

2.12%

+4.06%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.03%

9.76%

+0.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.12%

12.17%

+0.95%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.67%

12.52%

-2.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.97%

12.41%

-1.44%

GDMA vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDMA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.


Dividends

GDMA vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, less than DBMF's 5.09% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
5.09%5.91%5.75%2.91%7.72%10.38%0.86%9.35%
GDMA
Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF
2.51%2.79%2.32%4.14%1.18%2.10%0.62%3.17%

Frequently Asked Questions


GDMA and DBMF have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GDMA has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to DBMF (2.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDMA dropped -16.66% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

On 5-year performance, DBMF leads with 8.46% vs 7.66% for GDMA. On fees, GDMA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 8.46% return vs 7.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GDMA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.09%, compared with 2.51% for GDMA.

GDMA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Gadsden and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for GDMA and 0.85% for DBMF.

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.47), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GDMA 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