GGM vs. TBFG

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

GGM (GGM Macro Alignment ETF) and TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GGM returned 17.82% vs 17.52% for TBFG. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GGM charges 0.94%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for TBFG.

Performance

GGM vs. TBFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGM achieves a 11.71% return, which is significantly higher than TBFG's 8.37% return.

GGM

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 3.38%
• 6M: 8.29%
• YTD: 11.71%
• 1Y: 17.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFG

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: -0.87%
• 6M: 5.72%
• YTD: 8.37%
• 1Y: 17.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GGM vs. TBFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	11.71%	1.24%	4.00%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	8.37%	14.56%	10.20%

Correlation

The correlation between GGM and TBFG is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	0.74

The correlation between GGM and TBFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

GGM vs. TBFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GGM	TBFG
Energy	20.9%	5.8%
Industrials	20.6%	12.0%
Consumer Defensive	19.5%	5.2%
Utilities	19.0%	2.6%
Basic Materials	17.9%	4.9%
Technology	2.0%	28.9%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	8.8%
Communication Services	0.0%	7.2%
Financial Services	-	14.5%
Healthcare	-	7.8%
Real Estate	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

GGM vs. TBFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGM

GGM Risk / Return Rank: 59
GGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
GGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
GGM Omega Ratio Rank: 58
GGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GGM Martin Ratio Rank: 57

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 65
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. TBFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). 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	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	1.65	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	2.32	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.30	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	2.31	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.35	9.53	-2.18

GGM vs. TBFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGM Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is comparable to the TBFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGM and TBFG, 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. TBFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGM drawdown since its inception was -19.68%, which is greater than TBFG's maximum drawdown of -13.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGM and TBFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGM	TBFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.68%	-13.43%	-6.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.54%	-7.63%	+0.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-2.15%	+1.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.08%	-1.61%	-3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.43%	1.84%	+0.59%

Volatility

GGM vs. TBFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) is 2.75%, while The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a volatility of 3.16%. This indicates that GGM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TBFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GGM	TBFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.75%	3.16%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.39%	9.15%	+0.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.95%	10.65%	+1.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.24%	11.13%	+2.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.24%	11.13%	+2.11%

GGM vs. TBFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGM has a 0.94% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFG's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

GGM vs. TBFG - Dividend Comparison

GGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, less than TBFG's 2.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	1.41%	1.57%	1.39%	0.50%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.42%	2.65%	2.43%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GGM and TBFG in my portfolio?

GGM and TBFG have a correlation of 0.67, 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 TBFG?

TBFG has higher volatility (3.16%) compared to GGM (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGM dropped -19.68% vs TBFG's -13.43%.

Which ETF is better, GGM or TBFG?

On 1-year performance, GGM leads with 17.82% vs 17.52% for TBFG. On fees, TBFG is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, GGM has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GGM or TBFG?

Over the 1-year period, GGM has performed better with a 17.82% return vs 17.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGM or TBFG?

TBFG is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.94% for GGM.

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

TBFG has the higher dividend yield at 2.42%, compared with 1.41% for GGM.

What is the main difference between GGM and TBFG?

They also come from different issuers: GGM Wealth Advisors and The Brinsmere Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.94% for GGM and 0.42% for TBFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs 1.50), 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.