GMMA vs. CEFZ

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) and CEFZ (RiverNorth Active Income ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GMMA is passively managed, while CEFZ is actively managed. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMMA charges 0.75%/yr vs 3.36%/yr for CEFZ.

Performance

GMMA vs. CEFZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMMA achieves a 2.92% return, which is significantly lower than CEFZ's 4.59% return.

GMMA

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 6M: 2.80%
• 1Y: 9.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEFZ

• 1D: -0.66%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 4.59%
• 6M: 5.08%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMMA vs. CEFZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	2.92%	5.19%
CEFZ RiverNorth Active Income ETF	4.59%	7.41%

Correlation

The correlation between GMMA and CEFZ is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 4, 2025	0.65

Return for Risk

GMMA vs. CEFZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 54
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 54
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 57

CEFZ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. CEFZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) and RiverNorth Active Income ETF (CEFZ). 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	CEFZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.34	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.73	—	—

Drawdowns

GMMA vs. CEFZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMMA drawdown since its inception was -5.21%, smaller than the maximum CEFZ drawdown of -6.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMMA and CEFZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMMA	CEFZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.21%	-6.66%	+1.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.07%	-1.28%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.24%	-1.20%	-0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.03%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GMMA	CEFZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.99%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.87%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.99%	10.42%	-4.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.32%	10.42%	-3.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.32%	10.42%	-3.10%

GMMA vs. CEFZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMMA has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFZ's 3.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMMA vs. CEFZ - Dividend Comparison

GMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.67%, less than CEFZ's 8.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CEFZ RiverNorth Active Income ETF	8.32%	4.17%	0.00%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.67%	3.00%	0.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMMA and CEFZ in my portfolio?

GMMA and CEFZ have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GMMA or CEFZ?

On fees, GMMA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMMA or CEFZ?

GMMA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 3.36% for CEFZ.

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

CEFZ has the higher dividend yield at 8.32%, compared with 3.67% for GMMA.

What is the main difference between GMMA and CEFZ?

They also come from different issuers: GammaRoad Capital Partners and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GMMA and 3.36% for CEFZ.