MFUL vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

MFUL (Mindful Conservative ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFUL is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Mohr Funds, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MFUL returned 4.73%/yr vs 9.24%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MFUL charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

MFUL vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) 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, MFUL achieves a 2.96% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.77% return.

MFUL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 2.96%
• 6M: 2.87%
• 1Y: 6.78%
• 3Y*: 4.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: -0.42%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 10.08%
• 1Y: 27.61%
• 3Y*: 9.24%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

MFUL vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	2.96%	4.51%	5.36%	2.24%	-12.46%	-1.61%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.77%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	-1.76%

Correlation

The correlation between MFUL and DBMF is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2021	0.06

Over the past year, MFUL and DBMF have become more correlated (0.38) than their long-term average of 0.06, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

MFUL vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFUL

MFUL Risk / Return Rank: 47
MFUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
MFUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
MFUL Omega Ratio Rank: 51
MFUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
MFUL Martin Ratio Rank: 47

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 78
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 82
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

MFUL vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) 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.

	MFUL	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.24	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	2.94	-0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.47	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	4.55	-2.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.65	16.25	-8.60

MFUL vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFUL Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFUL 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

MFUL vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFUL drawdown since its inception was -16.41%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFUL and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFUL	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.41%	-20.39%	+3.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.36%	-6.10%	+2.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.74%	-15.60%	+10.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.77%	-1.46%	+0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.40%	-6.55%	-2.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.89%	1.70%	-0.81%

Volatility

MFUL vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) is 1.82%, while iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a volatility of 2.85%. This indicates that MFUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFUL	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	2.85%	-1.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.57%	10.05%	-6.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.23%	12.42%	-8.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.29%	12.52%	-8.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.29%	12.40%	-8.11%

MFUL vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFUL has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFUL vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

MFUL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%, less 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%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.02%	3.31%	2.59%	5.00%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MFUL and DBMF in my portfolio?

MFUL and DBMF have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MFUL or DBMF?

DBMF has higher volatility (2.85%) compared to MFUL (1.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFUL dropped -16.41% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, MFUL or DBMF?

On 3-year performance, DBMF leads with 9.24% vs 4.73% for MFUL. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, MFUL has been the lower-risk option at 1.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFUL or DBMF?

Over the 3-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 9.24% return vs 4.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFUL or DBMF?

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for MFUL.

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

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.17%, compared with 3.02% for MFUL.

What is the main difference between MFUL and DBMF?

MFUL is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Mohr Funds and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for MFUL and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.61), 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.