GMMA vs. ALLW

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) and ALLW (State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GMMA is passively managed, while ALLW is actively managed. Over the past year, GMMA returned 9.98% vs 16.80% for ALLW. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GMMA charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for ALLW.

Performance

GMMA vs. ALLW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) and State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMMA achieves a 5.54% return, which is significantly lower than ALLW's 6.80% return.

GMMA

• 1D: 1.25%
• 1M: 2.64%
• 6M: 4.47%
• YTD: 5.54%
• 1Y: 9.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.84%

ALLW

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 0.41%
• 6M: 2.23%
• YTD: 6.80%
• 1Y: 16.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.97%

*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)
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	$13.68M	$12.59M	$17.04M
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	$3.27K	$2.85K	$4.08K

GMMA vs. ALLW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	5.54%	6.05%
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	6.80%	15.44%

Correlation

The correlation between GMMA and ALLW is 0.58, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025	0.48

The correlation between GMMA and ALLW shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (all time) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GMMA vs. ALLW — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 62
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 66

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 56
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 55
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

GMMA vs. ALLW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) and State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW). 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.

	GMMA	ALLW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.52	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	2.05	+0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.28	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	2.33	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.05	7.86	+1.19

GMMA vs. ALLW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the ALLW Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMMA and ALLW, 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

GMMA vs. ALLW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMMA drawdown since its inception was -5.21%, smaller than the maximum ALLW drawdown of -8.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMMA and ALLW.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMMA	ALLW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.21%	-8.78%	+3.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.39%	-7.23%	+3.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.97%	+2.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.22%	-1.43%	+0.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.11%	2.14%	-1.03%

Volatility

GMMA vs. ALLW - Volatility Comparison

GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) and State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) have volatilities of 2.77% and 2.71%, 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

	GMMA	ALLW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.77%	2.71%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.40%	8.81%	-3.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.55%	11.14%	-4.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.44%	12.42%	-4.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.44%	12.42%	-4.98%

GMMA vs. ALLW - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMMA has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than ALLW's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMMA vs. ALLW - Dividend Comparison

GMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.38%, less than ALLW's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.38%	4.67%	0.00%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.38%	3.00%	0.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMMA and ALLW in my portfolio?

GMMA and ALLW have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMMA or ALLW?

GMMA has higher volatility (2.77%) compared to ALLW (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMMA dropped -5.21% vs ALLW's -8.78%.

Which ETF is better, GMMA or ALLW?

On 1-year performance, ALLW leads with 16.80% vs 9.98% for GMMA. On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% 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, GMMA or ALLW?

Over the 1-year period, ALLW has performed better with a 16.80% return vs 9.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMMA or ALLW?

GMMA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ALLW.

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

ALLW has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 3.38% for GMMA.

What is the main difference between GMMA and ALLW?

They also come from different issuers: GammaRoad and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GMMA and 0.85% for ALLW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.52), 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.