KEAT vs. GDMA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

KEAT (Keating Active ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both Global Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, KEAT returned 25.42% vs 25.16% for GDMA. Their 0.40 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. KEAT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.

Performance

KEAT vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Keating Active ETF (KEAT) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with KEAT having a 10.28% return and GDMA slightly higher at 10.56%.

KEAT

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 4.95%
• 6M: 3.71%
• YTD: 10.28%
• 1Y: 25.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.29%

GDMA

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 2.38%
• 6M: 1.94%
• YTD: 10.56%
• 1Y: 25.16%
• 3Y*: 16.04%
• 5Y*: 8.45%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.45%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	$1.65M	$1.00M	$708.66K
KEAT Keating Active ETF	$40.28K	$122.03K	$129.65K

KEAT vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KEAT Keating Active ETF	10.28%	22.76%	3.10%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	10.56%	25.29%	4.55%

Correlation

The correlation between KEAT and GDMA is 0.33, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024	0.40

Return for Risk

KEAT vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

KEAT

KEAT Risk / Return Rank: 79
KEAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
KEAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
KEAT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
KEAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
KEAT Martin Ratio Rank: 56

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 67
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

KEAT vs. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Keating Active ETF (KEAT) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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.

	KEAT	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	1.49	+0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.16	1.97	+1.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.28	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	3.12	-0.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.68	7.24	-0.56

KEAT vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KEAT Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is higher than the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KEAT and GDMA, 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

KEAT vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KEAT drawdown since its inception was -10.59%, smaller than the maximum GDMA drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KEAT and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	KEAT	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.59%	-16.66%	+6.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.59%	-7.53%	-3.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.53%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-12.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.86%	-3.21%	-1.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-3.79%	+1.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.83%	3.24%	+0.59%

Volatility

KEAT vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Keating Active ETF (KEAT) is 2.45%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 3.27%. This indicates that KEAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KEAT	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.45%	3.27%	-0.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.88%	13.20%	-4.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.87%	15.80%	-4.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.37%	10.24%	+0.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.37%	11.39%	-1.02%

KEAT vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

KEAT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

KEAT vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

KEAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, which matches GDMA's 2.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.53%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
KEAT Keating Active ETF	2.51%	2.48%	1.72%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KEAT and GDMA in my portfolio?

KEAT and GDMA have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KEAT or GDMA?

GDMA has higher volatility (3.27%) compared to KEAT (2.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KEAT dropped -10.59% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, KEAT or GDMA?

On 1-year performance, KEAT leads with 25.42% vs 25.16% for GDMA. On fees, GDMA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, KEAT has been the lower-risk option at 2.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KEAT or GDMA?

Over the 1-year period, KEAT has performed better with a 25.42% return vs 25.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KEAT or GDMA?

GDMA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for KEAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KEAT or GDMA?

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.53%, compared with 2.51% for KEAT.

What is the main difference between KEAT and GDMA?

They also come from different issuers: Keating and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for KEAT and 0.77% for GDMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KEAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.49), 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.