PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GSC vs. DBMF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GSC vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF (GSC) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSC achieves a 21.55% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 9.37% return.


GSC

1D
-1.20%
1M
7.98%
YTD
21.55%
6M
18.78%
1Y
33.32%
3Y*
28.34%
5Y*
24.30%
10Y*
11.56%

DBMF

1D
-1.26%
1M
-1.67%
YTD
9.37%
6M
8.47%
1Y
26.10%
3Y*
8.78%
5Y*
7.97%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GSC vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
GSC
Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF
21.55%6.29%13.79%33.52%28.40%58.09%-33.08%5.66%
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
9.37%13.85%7.24%-8.94%21.61%11.49%1.80%10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between GSC and DBMF is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.21

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.16

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019

0.10

The correlation between GSC and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (all time) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GSC vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GSC
GSC Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
GSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
GSC Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
GSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
GSC Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank

DBMF
DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GSC vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF (GSC) 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.

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.


GSCDBMFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.99

1.44

+0.56

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.57

4.30

-3.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.98

15.28

-13.31

GSC vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSC Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is lower than the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSC 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GSC vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSC drawdown since its inception was -88.63%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSC and DBMF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GSCDBMFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-88.63%

-20.39%

-68.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-58.25%

-6.10%

-52.15%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-58.25%

-15.60%

-42.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-58.25%

-20.39%

-37.86%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-66.06%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-27.81%

-2.71%

-25.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-59.18%

-6.55%

-52.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.91%

1.71%

+15.20%

Volatility

GSC vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF (GSC) has a higher volatility of 6.31% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 3.11%. This indicates that GSC'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GSCDBMFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.31%

3.11%

+3.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

187.41%

10.14%

+177.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

403.80%

12.47%

+391.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

218.85%

12.53%

+206.32%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

160.44%

12.41%

+148.03%

GSC vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.


Dividends

GSC vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

GSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than DBMF's 5.23% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
DBMF
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF
5.23%5.91%5.75%2.91%7.72%10.38%0.86%9.35%
GSC
Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF
0.16%0.16%0.66%0.11%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


GSC and DBMF have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GSC has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to DBMF (3.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSC dropped -88.63% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

On 5-year performance, GSC leads with 24.30% vs 7.97% for DBMF. On fees, GSC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 3.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, GSC has performed better with a 24.30% return vs 7.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GSC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.23%, compared with 0.16% for GSC.

GSC is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GSC and 0.85% for DBMF.

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs 0.08), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GSC and DBMF

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer