GMMA vs. TBFC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) and TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GMMA is passively managed, while TBFC is actively managed. Over the past year, GMMA returned 8.28% vs 13.31% for TBFC. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMMA charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for TBFC.

Performance

GMMA vs. TBFC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMMA achieves a 1.98% return, which is significantly lower than TBFC's 4.58% return.

GMMA

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 1.98%
• 6M: 1.78%
• 1Y: 8.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFC

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: 0.01%
• YTD: 4.58%
• 6M: 4.32%
• 1Y: 13.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMMA vs. TBFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	1.98%	8.95%	0.22%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.58%	11.38%	-1.58%

Correlation

The correlation between GMMA and TBFC is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.71

The correlation between GMMA and TBFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GMMA vs. TBFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 47
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 51

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 63
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. TBFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). 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	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	1.94	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	2.73	-0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.37	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.45	2.45	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.01	10.13	-2.12

GMMA vs. TBFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is comparable to the TBFC Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMMA and TBFC, 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. TBFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMMA drawdown since its inception was -5.21%, smaller than the maximum TBFC drawdown of -8.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMMA and TBFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMMA	TBFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.21%	-8.89%	+3.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.39%	-5.45%	+2.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.98%	-1.36%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.24%	-1.06%	-0.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	1.32%	-0.28%

Volatility

GMMA vs. TBFC - Volatility Comparison

GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) have volatilities of 3.12% and 3.03%, 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	TBFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.12%	3.03%	+0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.92%	5.88%	-0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.05%	6.89%	-0.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.34%	7.29%	+0.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.34%	7.29%	+0.05%

GMMA vs. TBFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMMA has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFC's 0.44% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMMA vs. TBFC - Dividend Comparison

GMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.70%, more than TBFC's 2.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.70%	3.00%	0.57%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.96%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMMA and TBFC in my portfolio?

GMMA and TBFC have a correlation of 0.81, 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 TBFC?

GMMA has higher volatility (3.12%) compared to TBFC (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMMA dropped -5.21% vs TBFC's -8.89%.

Which ETF is better, GMMA or TBFC?

On 1-year performance, TBFC leads with 13.31% vs 8.28% for GMMA. On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% 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 TBFC?

Over the 1-year period, TBFC has performed better with a 13.31% return vs 8.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMMA or TBFC?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GMMA.

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

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.70%, compared with 2.96% for TBFC.

What is the main difference between GMMA and TBFC?

They also come from different issuers: GammaRoad Capital Partners and Brinsmere. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GMMA and 0.44% for TBFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.38), 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.