GMMA vs. TBFG

Last updated Apr 15, 2026

GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) and TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GMMA returned 5.89% vs 26.16% for TBFG. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMMA charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for TBFG.

Performance

GMMA vs. TBFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) 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, GMMA achieves a -1.27% return, which is significantly lower than TBFG's 4.89% return.

GMMA

• 1D: 0.74%
• 1M: -1.23%
• YTD: -1.27%
• 6M: 0.10%
• 1Y: 5.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFG

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 4.73%
• YTD: 4.89%
• 6M: 7.97%
• 1Y: 26.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMMA vs. TBFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	-1.27%	8.95%	0.49%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	4.89%	14.56%	-0.32%

Correlation

The correlation between GMMA and TBFG is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	0.72

The correlation between GMMA and TBFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.73 — a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GMMA vs. TBFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 25
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 26
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 28

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 74
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. TBFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	GMMA	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	2.75	-1.56
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	3.83	-2.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.52	-0.29
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.75	3.76	-2.00
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.80	16.36	-9.56
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. TBFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is lower than the TBFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMMA 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GMMA	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.20	2.75	-1.56
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.71	1.23	-0.52

Drawdowns

GMMA vs. TBFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMMA drawdown since its inception was -5.21%, smaller than the maximum TBFG drawdown of -13.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMMA and TBFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMMA	TBFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.21%	-13.43%	+8.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.39%	-7.63%	+4.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.57%	-0.90%	-1.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.27%	-1.70%	+0.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.87%	1.75%	-0.88%

Volatility

GMMA vs. TBFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) is 1.99%, while The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a volatility of 4.82%. This indicates that GMMA 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

	GMMA	TBFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.99%	4.82%	-2.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.82%	7.89%	-4.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.97%	9.61%	-4.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.20%	11.02%	-3.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.20%	11.02%	-3.82%

GMMA vs. TBFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMMA has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFG's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMMA vs. TBFG - Dividend Comparison

GMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.83%, more than TBFG's 2.47% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.83%	3.00%	0.57%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.47%	2.65%	2.43%