IAU vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IAU (iShares Gold Trust) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. IAU is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IAU returned 17.23%/yr vs 8.01%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAU charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

IAU vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust (IAU) 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, IAU achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.27% return.

IAU

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -10.21%
• YTD: -2.44%
• 6M: -2.22%
• 1Y: 23.95%
• 3Y*: 29.07%
• 5Y*: 17.23%
• 10Y*: 12.31%

DBMF

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -0.96%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 11.24%
• 1Y: 27.33%
• 3Y*: 9.64%
• 5Y*: 8.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

IAU vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IAU iShares Gold Trust	-2.44%	63.95%	26.85%	12.84%	-0.63%	-4.00%	25.03%	17.98%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.27%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IAU and DBMF is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	0.13

Over the past year, IAU and DBMF have become more correlated (0.43) than their long-term average of 0.13, meaning their price movements have been converging.

IAU vs. DBMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IAU	DBMF
Real Estate	100.0%	2.5%
Basic Materials	-	2.2%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.1%
Energy	-	3.9%
Financial Services	-	12.5%
Healthcare	-	12.7%
Industrials	-	8.4%
Technology	-	29.8%
Utilities	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

IAU vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAU

IAU Risk / Return Rank: 26
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 30
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 24

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 84
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

IAU vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) 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.

	IAU	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	2.22	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	2.92	-1.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.47	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	4.50	-3.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	16.30	-13.47

IAU vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAU 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

IAU vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IAU	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.14%	-20.39%	-24.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.40%	-6.10%	-18.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.40%	-15.60%	-8.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.40%	-20.39%	-4.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.03%	-1.91%	-20.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.97%	-6.56%	-9.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.47%	1.68%	+6.79%

Volatility

IAU vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a higher volatility of 7.70% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.71%. This indicates that IAU'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

	IAU	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.70%	2.71%	+4.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.94%	10.00%	+13.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.17%	12.35%	+14.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.16%	12.55%	+5.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.02%	12.41%	+3.61%

IAU vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAU has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAU vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.19%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%
IAU iShares Gold Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IAU and DBMF in my portfolio?

IAU and DBMF have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IAU or DBMF?

IAU has higher volatility (7.70%) compared to DBMF (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAU dropped -45.14% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, IAU or DBMF?

On 5-year performance, IAU leads with 17.23% vs 8.01% for DBMF. On fees, IAU is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IAU or DBMF?

Over the 5-year period, IAU has performed better with a 17.23% return vs 8.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IAU or DBMF?

IAU is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.19%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

What is the main difference between IAU and DBMF?

IAU is categorized as Gold, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: iShares and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IAU and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 0.89), 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.