IMF vs. DABS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IMF (Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and DABS (DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Invesco, while DABS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by DoubleLine. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IMF returned 20.26% vs 5.58% for DABS. At a correlation of -0.10, they often move in opposite directions. IMF charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for DABS.

Performance

IMF vs. DABS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF (IMF) and DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF (DABS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMF achieves a 14.31% return, which is significantly higher than DABS's 1.12% return.

IMF

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 0.62%
• YTD: 14.31%
• 6M: 18.59%
• 1Y: 20.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DABS

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.44%
• YTD: 1.12%
• 6M: 1.52%
• 1Y: 5.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IMF vs. DABS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IMF Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF	14.31%	-7.96%
DABS DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF	1.12%	5.54%

Correlation

The correlation between IMF and DABS is -0.14, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 20, 2025	-0.10

Return for Risk

IMF vs. DABS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMF

IMF Risk / Return Rank: 69
IMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
IMF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
IMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
IMF Martin Ratio Rank: 78

DABS

DABS Risk / Return Rank: 78
DABS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
DABS Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
DABS Omega Ratio Rank: 79
DABS Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
DABS Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

IMF vs. DABS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF (IMF) and DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF (DABS). 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.

	IMF	DABS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.96	2.26	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.56	3.47	-0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.46	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.67	4.34	+1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.90	14.96	-0.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMF vs. DABS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.96, which is comparable to the DABS Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMF and DABS, 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

	IMF	DABS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.96	2.26	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	2.12	-1.77

Drawdowns

IMF vs. DABS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMF drawdown since its inception was -15.10%, which is greater than DABS's maximum drawdown of -1.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMF and DABS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMF	DABS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.10%	-1.47%	-13.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.59%	-1.29%	-2.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.62%	-0.25%	-0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.39%	-0.31%	-8.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.36%	0.37%	+0.99%

Volatility

IMF vs. DABS - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF (IMF) has a higher volatility of 2.02% compared to DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF (DABS) at 0.75%. This indicates that IMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DABS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMF	DABS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.02%	0.75%	+1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.91%	1.61%	+7.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.40%	2.50%	+7.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.46%	2.56%	+9.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.46%	2.56%	+9.90%

IMF vs. DABS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMF has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than DABS's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMF vs. DABS - Dividend Comparison

IMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, less than DABS's 4.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
DABS DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF	4.88%	3.81%
IMF Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF	0.88%	1.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMF and DABS in my portfolio?

IMF and DABS have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IMF or DABS?

IMF has higher volatility (2.02%) compared to DABS (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMF dropped -15.10% vs DABS's -1.47%.

Which ETF is better, IMF or DABS?

On 1-year performance, IMF leads with 20.26% vs 5.58% for DABS. On fees, DABS is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, DABS has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMF or DABS?

Over the 1-year period, IMF has performed better with a 20.26% return vs 5.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMF or DABS?

DABS is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for IMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IMF or DABS?

DABS has the higher dividend yield at 4.88%, compared with 0.88% for IMF.

What is the main difference between IMF and DABS?

IMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while DABS is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and DoubleLine. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for IMF and 0.40% for DABS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DABS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 1.96), 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.