MATE vs. TBFC

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

MATE (Man Active Trend Enhanced ETF) and TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MATE charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for TBFC.

Performance

MATE vs. TBFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Man Active Trend Enhanced ETF (MATE) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MATE achieves a 16.06% return, which is significantly higher than TBFC's 4.62% return.

MATE

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: -0.60%
• 6M: 8.24%
• YTD: 16.06%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFC

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: -0.95%
• 6M: 2.91%
• YTD: 4.62%
• 1Y: 11.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MATE vs. TBFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MATE Man Active Trend Enhanced ETF	16.06%	2.65%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.62%	0.64%

Correlation

The correlation between MATE and TBFC is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 17, 2025	0.82

Return for Risk

MATE vs. TBFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

MATE

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 62
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

MATE vs. TBFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Man Active Trend Enhanced ETF (MATE) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). 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.

	MATE	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.70	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.39	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.32	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.15	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	8.74	—

Drawdowns

MATE vs. TBFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MATE drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, which is greater than TBFC's maximum drawdown of -8.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MATE and TBFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	MATE	TBFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.24%	-8.89%	-4.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-5.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.97%	-1.32%	-2.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.42%	-1.06%	-2.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.34%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MATE	TBFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.02%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.96%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.50%	6.92%	+15.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.50%	7.26%	+15.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.50%	7.26%	+15.24%

MATE vs. TBFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

MATE has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFC's 0.44% expense ratio.

Dividends

MATE vs. TBFC - Dividend Comparison

MATE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
MATE Man Active Trend Enhanced ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	3.02%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MATE and TBFC in my portfolio?

MATE and TBFC have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MATE or TBFC?

On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MATE or TBFC?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for MATE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MATE or TBFC?

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 3.02%, compared with 0.00% for MATE.

What is the main difference between MATE and TBFC?

They also come from different issuers: Man Group and Brinsmere. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for MATE and 0.44% for TBFC.