NEMD vs. IMF

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

NEMD (Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) and IMF (Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NEMD is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman, while IMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Invesco. Both are actively managed. Their 0.09 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. NEMD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for IMF.

Performance

NEMD vs. IMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF (IMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NEMD achieves a 3.47% return, which is significantly lower than IMF's 13.08% return.

NEMD

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -1.04%
• 6M: 1.88%
• YTD: 3.47%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

IMF

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 2.23%
• 6M: 9.83%
• YTD: 13.08%
• 1Y: 22.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.79%

*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)
IMF Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF	$99.09K	$127.43K	$386.40K
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	$328.32K	$489.11K	$564.01K

NEMD vs. IMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	3.47%	7.10%
IMF Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF	13.08%	6.69%

Correlation

The correlation between NEMD and IMF is 0.09, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 11, 2025	0.09

Return for Risk

NEMD vs. IMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NEMD

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

IMF

IMF Risk / Return Rank: 87
IMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
IMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
IMF Omega Ratio Rank: 88
IMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
IMF Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

NEMD vs. IMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF (IMF). 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.

	NEMD	IMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.01	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.59	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.39	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.70	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	13.84	—

Drawdowns

NEMD vs. IMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NEMD drawdown since its inception was -4.43%, smaller than the maximum IMF drawdown of -15.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEMD and IMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NEMD	IMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.43%	-15.29%	+10.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-4.54%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.35%	-1.69%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.59%	-7.87%	+7.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.54%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	NEMD	IMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.08%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.95%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.44%	10.65%	-4.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.44%	12.17%	-5.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.44%	12.17%	-5.73%

NEMD vs. IMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NEMD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than IMF's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

NEMD vs. IMF - Dividend Comparison

NEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.81%, more than IMF's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
IMF Invesco Managed Futures Strategy ETF	0.89%	1.01%
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	5.81%	2.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NEMD and IMF in my portfolio?

NEMD and IMF have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, NEMD or IMF?

On fees, NEMD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, NEMD or IMF?

NEMD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for IMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NEMD or IMF?

NEMD has the higher dividend yield at 5.81%, compared with 0.89% for IMF.

What is the main difference between NEMD and IMF?

NEMD is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while IMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for NEMD and 0.65% for IMF.