GNR vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 7, 2026

GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GNR is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Natural Resources Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. GNR is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GNR returned 8.89%/yr vs 7.93%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GNR charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

GNR vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GNR achieves a 15.74% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 9.70% return.

GNR

• 1D: -3.78%
• 1M: -2.98%
• YTD: 15.74%
• 6M: 18.87%
• 1Y: 37.17%
• 3Y*: 13.81%
• 5Y*: 8.89%
• 10Y*: 10.19%

DBMF

• 1D: -2.01%
• 1M: -0.10%
• YTD: 9.70%
• 6M: 11.78%
• 1Y: 28.17%
• 3Y*: 9.96%
• 5Y*: 7.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

GNR vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	15.74%	28.68%	-8.27%	2.95%	10.20%	24.73%	-0.03%	7.26%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	9.70%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GNR and DBMF is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2019	0.23

Over the past year, GNR and DBMF have become more correlated (0.52) than their long-term average of 0.23, meaning their price movements have been converging.

GNR vs. DBMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GNR	DBMF
Basic Materials	50.3%	2.2%
Energy	37.6%	3.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	11.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	6.1%
Real Estate	0.8%	2.5%
Industrials	0.2%	8.4%
Financial Services	0.0%	12.5%
Healthcare	0.0%	12.7%
Utilities	0.0%	2.3%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Technology	-	29.8%

Return for Risk

GNR vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 75
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 87

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 78
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 82
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

GNR vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). 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.

	GNR	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	2.26	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	2.97	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.48	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.68	4.58	+0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.09	16.82	+1.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GNR vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GNR and DBMF, 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

	GNR	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.22	2.26	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.63	-0.19
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	0.74	-0.49

Drawdowns

GNR vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GNR drawdown since its inception was -51.37%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GNR and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GNR	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.37%	-20.39%	-30.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.97%	-6.10%	-1.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.15%	-15.60%	-5.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	-20.39%	-5.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.59%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.22%	-2.42%	-2.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.95%	-6.58%	-8.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	1.66%	+0.40%

Volatility

GNR vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) has a higher volatility of 5.78% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.88%. This indicates that GNR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GNR	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.78%	2.88%	+2.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.73%	10.00%	+3.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.85%	12.35%	+4.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.30%	12.55%	+7.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.90%	12.43%	+9.47%

GNR vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GNR has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

GNR vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

GNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.56%, less than DBMF's 5.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.22%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.56%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GNR and DBMF in my portfolio?

GNR and DBMF have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GNR or DBMF?

GNR has higher volatility (5.78%) compared to DBMF (2.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GNR dropped -51.37% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, GNR or DBMF?

On 5-year performance, GNR leads with 8.89% vs 7.93% for DBMF. On fees, GNR is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GNR or DBMF?

Over the 5-year period, GNR has performed better with a 8.89% return vs 7.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GNR or DBMF?

GNR is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GNR or DBMF?

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.22%, compared with 2.56% for GNR.

What is the main difference between GNR and DBMF?

GNR is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GNR and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 2.22), 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.