HFGM vs. CTA

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

HFGM (Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF) and CTA (Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HFGM is a Macro Trading fund actively managed by Unlimited, while CTA is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Simplify. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, HFGM returned 24.01% vs -0.10% for CTA. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HFGM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.78%/yr for CTA.

Performance

HFGM vs. CTA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HFGM achieves a 6.94% return, which is significantly higher than CTA's 0.33% return.

HFGM

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: -3.61%
• 6M: -1.88%
• YTD: 6.94%
• 1Y: 24.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CTA

• 1D: 2.70%
• 1M: -5.44%
• 6M: -2.22%
• YTD: 0.33%
• 1Y: -0.10%
• 3Y*: 8.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HFGM vs. CTA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	6.94%	26.88%
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	0.33%	0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between HFGM and CTA 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2025	0.24

Return for Risk

HFGM vs. CTA — Risk / Return Rank

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

HFGM

HFGM Risk / Return Rank: 36
HFGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
HFGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
HFGM Omega Ratio Rank: 35
HFGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
HFGM Martin Ratio Rank: 37

CTA

CTA Risk / Return Rank: 9
CTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Omega Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
CTA Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

HFGM vs. CTA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) and Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA). 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.

	HFGM	CTA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	-0.00	+1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	0.13	+1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.02	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.60	-0.00	+1.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.48	-0.01	+4.49

HFGM vs. CTA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HFGM Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is higher than the CTA Sharpe Ratio of -0.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HFGM and CTA, 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

HFGM vs. CTA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HFGM drawdown since its inception was -15.09%, smaller than the maximum CTA drawdown of -20.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HFGM and CTA.

Drawdown Indicators

	HFGM	CTA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.09%	-20.44%	+5.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.09%	-20.44%	+5.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.88%	-17.68%	+5.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.39%	-5.93%	+2.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.38%	6.76%	-1.38%

Volatility

HFGM vs. CTA - Volatility Comparison

Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) has a higher volatility of 6.35% compared to Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) at 5.15%. This indicates that HFGM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CTA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HFGM	CTA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.35%	5.15%	+1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.39%	17.93%	-0.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.32%	20.61%	+2.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.77%	16.63%	+5.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.77%	16.63%	+5.14%

HFGM vs. CTA - Expense Ratio Comparison

HFGM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CTA's 0.78% expense ratio.

Dividends

HFGM vs. CTA - Dividend Comparison

HFGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.51%, more than CTA's 5.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.00%	3.19%	4.80%	7.78%	6.58%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	10.51%	11.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HFGM and CTA in my portfolio?

HFGM and CTA 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.

Which is riskier, HFGM or CTA?

HFGM has higher volatility (6.35%) compared to CTA (5.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HFGM dropped -15.09% vs CTA's -20.44%.

Which ETF is better, HFGM or CTA?

On 1-year performance, HFGM leads with 24.01% vs -0.10% for CTA. On fees, CTA is cheaper at 0.78% per year. On volatility, CTA has been the lower-risk option at 5.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HFGM or CTA?

Over the 1-year period, HFGM has performed better with a 24.01% return vs -0.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HFGM or CTA?

CTA is cheaper with a 0.78% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for HFGM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HFGM or CTA?

HFGM has the higher dividend yield at 10.51%, compared with 5.00% for CTA.

What is the main difference between HFGM and CTA?

HFGM is categorized as Macro Trading, while CTA is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Unlimited and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for HFGM and 0.78% for CTA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HFGM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs -0.00), 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.