GMMA vs. ALLW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) and ALLW (SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GMMA is passively managed, while ALLW is actively managed. Over the past year, GMMA returned 10.84% vs 23.78% for ALLW. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. 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 SPDR 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 3.61% return, which is significantly lower than ALLW's 9.20% return.

GMMA

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 3.45%
• YTD: 3.61%
• 6M: 3.75%
• 1Y: 10.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ALLW

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 9.20%
• 6M: 8.47%
• 1Y: 23.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMMA vs. ALLW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.61%	6.69%
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	9.20%	15.04%

Correlation

The correlation between GMMA and ALLW is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2025	0.44

The correlation between GMMA and ALLW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMMA vs. ALLW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMMA	ALLW
Technology	35.6%	26.3%
Financial Services	11.8%	15.8%
Communication Services	11.2%	9.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	11.0%
Healthcare	8.5%	8.2%
Industrials	8.3%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	5.9%
Energy	3.5%	4.9%
Utilities	2.4%	2.8%
Real Estate	1.9%	1.8%
Basic Materials	1.8%	4.6%

Return for Risk

GMMA vs. ALLW — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 65
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 67
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

GMMA vs. ALLW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	GMMA	ALLW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	2.27	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	3.05	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.41	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.21	3.30	-0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.19	14.01	-2.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GMMA vs. ALLW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the ALLW Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GMMA	ALLW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	2.27	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.09	1.62	-0.53

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	-0.41%	-0.79%	+0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.23%	-1.20%	-0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	1.70%	-0.73%

Volatility

GMMA vs. ALLW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) is 1.88%, while SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) has a volatility of 3.43%. This indicates that GMMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ALLW based on this measure. 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	1.88%	3.43%	-1.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.09%	8.71%	-4.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.32%	10.52%	-5.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.10%	12.54%	-5.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.10%	12.54%	-5.44%

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 3.65%, less than ALLW's 4.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.28%	4.67%	0.00%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.65%	3.00%	0.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMMA and ALLW in my portfolio?

GMMA and ALLW have a correlation of 0.51, 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?

ALLW has higher volatility (3.43%) compared to GMMA (1.88%). 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 23.78% vs 10.84% for GMMA. On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GMMA has been the lower-risk option at 1.88%. 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 23.78% return vs 10.84%. 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 4.28%, compared with 3.65% for GMMA.

What is the main difference between GMMA and ALLW?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ALLW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 2.05), 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.