GDMA vs. TFPN

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) and TFPN (Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF) are both Global Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDMA returned 16.04%/yr vs 6.27%/yr for TFPN. Their 0.42 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GDMA charges 0.77%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for TFPN.

Performance

GDMA vs. TFPN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDMA achieves a 10.56% return, which is significantly lower than TFPN's 16.44% return.

GDMA

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 2.38%
• 6M: 1.94%
• YTD: 10.56%
• 1Y: 25.16%
• 3Y*: 16.04%
• 5Y*: 8.45%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.45%

TFPN

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: -1.64%
• 6M: 5.45%
• YTD: 16.44%
• 1Y: 29.78%
• 3Y*: 6.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.62%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	$1.65M	$1.00M	$708.66K
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	$429.91K	$568.98K	$358.90K

GDMA vs. TFPN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	10.56%	25.29%	7.44%	6.29%
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	16.44%	3.61%	2.67%	-1.83%

Correlation

The correlation between GDMA and TFPN is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2023	0.42

Return for Risk

GDMA vs. TFPN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 67
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

TFPN

TFPN Risk / Return Rank: 75
TFPN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TFPN Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
TFPN Omega Ratio Rank: 75
TFPN Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
TFPN Martin Ratio Rank: 71

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GDMA vs. TFPN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	GDMA	TFPN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	1.77	-0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	2.37	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.31	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.12	2.63	+0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.24	8.82	-1.58

GDMA vs. TFPN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is comparable to the TFPN Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDMA and TFPN, 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

GDMA vs. TFPN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDMA drawdown since its inception was -16.66%, roughly equal to the maximum TFPN drawdown of -16.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDMA and TFPN.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDMA	TFPN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.66%	-16.72%	+0.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.53%	-10.94%	+3.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.53%	-16.72%	+9.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.74%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.21%	-8.40%	+5.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.79%	-4.91%	+1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.24%	3.25%	-0.01%

Volatility

GDMA vs. TFPN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) is 3.27%, while Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN) has a volatility of 7.02%. This indicates that GDMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TFPN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDMA	TFPN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.27%	7.02%	-3.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.20%	13.85%	-0.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.80%	16.24%	-0.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.24%	13.35%	-3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.39%	13.35%	-1.96%

GDMA vs. TFPN - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDMA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than TFPN's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDMA vs. TFPN - Dividend Comparison

GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%, while TFPN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.53%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.94%	0.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDMA and TFPN in my portfolio?

GDMA and TFPN have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDMA or TFPN?

TFPN has higher volatility (7.02%) compared to GDMA (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDMA dropped -16.66% vs TFPN's -16.72%.

Which ETF is better, GDMA or TFPN?

On 3-year performance, GDMA leads with 16.04% vs 6.27% for TFPN. On fees, GDMA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, GDMA has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDMA or TFPN?

Over the 3-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 16.04% return vs 6.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDMA or TFPN?

GDMA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for TFPN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDMA or TFPN?

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.53%, compared with 0.00% for TFPN.

What is the main difference between GDMA and TFPN?

They also come from different issuers: Gadsden and Tidal. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for GDMA and 1.10% for TFPN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TFPN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.49), 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.