MNA vs. DBMF
MNA (IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MNA is a Hedge Fund fund tracking the IQ Merger Arbitrage Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. MNA is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MNA returned 2.01%/yr vs 8.43%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MNA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.
Performance
MNA vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MNA achieves a 1.73% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.77% return.
MNA
- 1D
- 0.20%
- 1M
- -0.16%
- YTD
- 1.73%
- 6M
- 1.42%
- 1Y
- 4.33%
- 3Y*
- 5.85%
- 5Y*
- 2.01%
- 10Y*
- 2.91%
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- -0.42%
- YTD
- 10.77%
- 6M
- 10.08%
- 1Y
- 27.61%
- 3Y*
- 9.24%
- 5Y*
- 8.43%
- 10Y*
- —
MNA vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF | 1.73% | 8.59% | 4.93% | 0.18% | -1.61% | -3.24% | 2.72% | 4.08% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 10.77% | 13.85% | 7.24% | -8.94% | 21.61% | 11.49% | 1.80% | 10.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between MNA and DBMF is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.06 |
The correlation between MNA and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (5 years) to 0.15 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MNA vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank
MNA
DBMF
MNA vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) 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.
| MNA | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.47 | -0.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.11 | 4.55 | -1.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.60 | 16.25 | -8.64 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MNA vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MNA drawdown since its inception was -16.68%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNA and DBMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MNA | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.68% | -20.39% | +3.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.40% | -6.10% | +4.70% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.01% | -15.60% | +12.59% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -10.24% | -20.39% | +10.15% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -16.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.60% | -1.46% | +0.86% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.83% | -6.55% | +3.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.57% | 1.70% | -1.13% |
Volatility
MNA vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is 1.36%, while iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) has a volatility of 2.85%. This indicates that MNA 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MNA | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.36% | 2.85% | -1.49% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.52% | 10.05% | -6.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.76% | 12.42% | -7.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.97% | 12.52% | -7.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.55% | 12.40% | -5.85% |
MNA vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
MNA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
MNA vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison
MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.17%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.17% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.30% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.21% | 0.87% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MNA and DBMF have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DBMF has higher volatility (2.85%) compared to MNA (1.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNA dropped -16.68% vs DBMF's -20.39%.
On 5-year performance, DBMF leads with 8.43% vs 2.01% for MNA. On fees, MNA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 8.43% return vs 2.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MNA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.17%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.
MNA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: New York Life and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for MNA and 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 0.91), 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.
Find the right allocation for MNA and DBMF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer