MRGR vs. GDMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MRGR (Proshares Merger ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both Hedge Fund funds. MRGR is passively managed, while GDMA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MRGR returned 3.99%/yr vs 7.66%/yr for GDMA. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MRGR charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.

Performance

MRGR vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MRGR achieves a 1.83% return, which is significantly lower than GDMA's 11.18% return.

MRGR

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 0.80%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 6M: 1.48%
• 1Y: 11.14%
• 3Y*: 8.65%
• 5Y*: 3.99%
• 10Y*: 3.47%

GDMA

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 1.83%
• YTD: 11.18%
• 6M: 14.08%
• 1Y: 32.26%
• 3Y*: 16.91%
• 5Y*: 7.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

MRGR vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MRGR Proshares Merger ETF	1.83%	11.99%	5.32%	4.94%	-4.81%	6.58%	1.99%	4.31%	0.79%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	11.18%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	3.95%	21.08%	11.59%	-3.93%

Correlation

The correlation between MRGR and GDMA is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2018	0.14

MRGR vs. GDMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MRGR	GDMA
Healthcare	22.7%	5.5%
Industrials	17.6%	14.4%
Financial Services	12.7%	14.5%
Real Estate	12.6%	1.6%
Basic Materials	5.8%	9.0%
Energy	5.6%	10.0%
Utilities	5.4%	2.4%
Technology	5.1%	23.4%
Communication Services	4.9%	7.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.9%	8.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	3.5%

Return for Risk

MRGR vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MRGR

MRGR Risk / Return Rank: 90
MRGR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
MRGR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
MRGR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MRGR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
MRGR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 74
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

MRGR vs. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares Merger ETF (MRGR) 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.

	MRGR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.72	2.47	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.63	3.21	+1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.47	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.65	4.30	+4.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.71	11.92	+11.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MRGR vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MRGR Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is comparable to the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MRGR 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MRGR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.72	2.47	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	0.80	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.68	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.89	-0.53

Drawdowns

MRGR vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MRGR drawdown since its inception was -13.23%, smaller than the maximum GDMA drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MRGR and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MRGR	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.23%	-16.66%	+3.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.29%	-7.53%	+6.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.10%	-7.53%	+5.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-8.40%	-12.74%	+4.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-13.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-1.06%	+0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-3.78%	-0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.47%	2.71%	-2.24%

Volatility

MRGR vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Proshares Merger ETF (MRGR) is 1.08%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that MRGR 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

	MRGR	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.08%	6.18%	-5.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.95%	10.03%	-7.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.11%	13.12%	-9.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.82%	9.67%	-5.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.15%	10.97%	-5.82%

MRGR vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MRGR has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

MRGR vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

MRGR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, more than GDMA's 2.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.51%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MRGR Proshares Merger ETF	2.97%	3.12%	3.21%	2.11%	0.61%	0.59%	0.00%	0.78%	1.39%	0.36%	0.74%	0.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MRGR and GDMA in my portfolio?

MRGR and GDMA have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MRGR or GDMA?

GDMA has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to MRGR (1.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MRGR dropped -13.23% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, MRGR or GDMA?

On 5-year performance, GDMA leads with 7.66% vs 3.99% for MRGR. On fees, MRGR is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, MRGR has been the lower-risk option at 1.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MRGR or GDMA?

Over the 5-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 7.66% return vs 3.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MRGR or GDMA?

MRGR is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

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

MRGR has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 2.51% for GDMA.

What is the main difference between MRGR and GDMA?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for MRGR and 0.77% for GDMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MRGR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 2.47), 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.