GGM vs. GMMA

Last updated Jul 8, 2026

GGM (GGM Macro Alignment ETF) and GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GGM is actively managed, while GMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, GGM returned 17.66% vs 8.69% for GMMA. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GGM charges 0.94%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GMMA.

Performance

GGM vs. GMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGM achieves a 11.95% return, which is significantly higher than GMMA's 3.28% return.

GGM

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 6.45%
• 6M: 9.29%
• YTD: 11.95%
• 1Y: 17.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GMMA

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.08%
• 6M: 2.28%
• YTD: 3.28%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GGM vs. GMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	11.95%	1.24%	-5.19%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.28%	8.95%	0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between GGM and GMMA is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.57

The correlation between GGM and GMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GGM vs. GMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGM

GGM Risk / Return Rank: 52
GGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
GGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
GGM Omega Ratio Rank: 51
GGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
GGM Martin Ratio Rank: 51

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 53
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 53
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

GGM vs. GMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). 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.

	GGM	GMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	1.43	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	2.00	+0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.28	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	2.57	-0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.27	8.12	-0.85

GGM vs. GMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGM Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is comparable to the GMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGM and GMMA, 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

GGM vs. GMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGM drawdown since its inception was -19.68%, which is greater than GMMA's maximum drawdown of -5.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGM and GMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGM	GMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.68%	-5.21%	-14.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.54%	-3.39%	-4.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-0.73%	+0.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.13%	-1.24%	-3.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.43%	1.07%	+1.36%

Volatility

GGM vs. GMMA - Volatility Comparison

GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) has a higher volatility of 4.03% compared to GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) at 3.31%. This indicates that GGM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GGM	GMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.03%	3.31%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.60%	5.06%	+4.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.93%	6.11%	+5.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.29%	7.33%	+5.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.29%	7.33%	+5.96%

GGM vs. GMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGM has a 0.94% expense ratio, which is higher than GMMA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

GGM vs. GMMA - Dividend Comparison

GGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, less than GMMA's 3.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	1.40%	1.57%	1.39%	0.50%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.45%	3.00%	0.57%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GGM and GMMA in my portfolio?

GGM and GMMA have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GGM or GMMA?

GGM has higher volatility (4.03%) compared to GMMA (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGM dropped -19.68% vs GMMA's -5.21%.

Which ETF is better, GGM or GMMA?

On 1-year performance, GGM leads with 17.66% vs 8.69% for GMMA. On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GMMA has been the lower-risk option at 3.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GGM or GMMA?

Over the 1-year period, GGM has performed better with a 17.66% return vs 8.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGM or GMMA?

GMMA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.94% for GGM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GGM or GMMA?

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.45%, compared with 1.40% for GGM.

What is the main difference between GGM and GMMA?

They also come from different issuers: GGM Wealth Advisors and GammaRoad Capital Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.94% for GGM and 0.75% for GMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GGM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 1.43), 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.