HFGM vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

HFGM (Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HFGM is a Macro Trading fund actively managed by Unlimited, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, HFGM returned 33.58% vs 27.45% for DBMF. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HFGM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

HFGM vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) 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, HFGM achieves a 9.67% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.63% return.

HFGM

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: -6.39%
• YTD: 9.67%
• 6M: 9.92%
• 1Y: 33.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: -0.61%
• YTD: 10.63%
• 6M: 10.35%
• 1Y: 27.45%
• 3Y*: 9.42%
• 5Y*: 8.69%
• 10Y*: —

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

HFGM vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	9.67%	26.88%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.63%	18.58%

Correlation

The correlation between HFGM and DBMF is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2025	0.57

The correlation between HFGM and DBMF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

HFGM vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

HFGM

HFGM Risk / Return Rank: 47
HFGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
HFGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
HFGM Omega Ratio Rank: 41
HFGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
HFGM Martin Ratio Rank: 48

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 79
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
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.

HFGM vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) 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.

	HFGM	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	2.23	-0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	2.93	-0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.47	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	4.54	-1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.59	16.23	-8.64

HFGM vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HFGM Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is lower than the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HFGM 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.

Drawdowns

HFGM vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HFGM drawdown since its inception was -10.97%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HFGM and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	HFGM	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.97%	-20.39%	+9.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.97%	-6.10%	-4.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.63%	-1.59%	-8.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.91%	-6.55%	+3.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.38%	1.70%	+2.68%

Volatility

HFGM vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) has a higher volatility of 5.15% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.92%. This indicates that HFGM'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

	HFGM	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.15%	2.92%	+2.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.78%	10.05%	+7.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.85%	12.39%	+10.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.68%	12.53%	+9.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.68%	12.41%	+9.27%

HFGM vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

HFGM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

HFGM vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

HFGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.24%, more than DBMF's 5.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.17%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	10.24%	11.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HFGM and DBMF in my portfolio?

HFGM and DBMF have a correlation of 0.61, 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 DBMF?

HFGM has higher volatility (5.15%) compared to DBMF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HFGM dropped -10.97% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, HFGM or DBMF?

On 1-year performance, HFGM leads with 33.58% vs 27.45% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HFGM or DBMF?

Over the 1-year period, HFGM has performed better with a 33.58% return vs 27.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HFGM or DBMF?

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for HFGM.

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

HFGM has the higher dividend yield at 10.24%, compared with 5.17% for DBMF.

What is the main difference between HFGM and DBMF?

HFGM is categorized as Macro Trading, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Unlimited and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for HFGM and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.46), 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.