NLR vs. DBMF
NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. NLR is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, NLR returned 20.95%/yr vs 8.18%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NLR charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.
Performance
NLR vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NLR achieves a 1.46% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.48% return.
NLR
- 1D
- 3.33%
- 1M
- -2.83%
- YTD
- 1.46%
- 6M
- 2.10%
- 1Y
- 22.97%
- 3Y*
- 30.97%
- 5Y*
- 20.95%
- 10Y*
- 13.18%
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.19%
- 1M
- -1.12%
- YTD
- 10.48%
- 6M
- 11.61%
- 1Y
- 27.18%
- 3Y*
- 9.37%
- 5Y*
- 8.18%
- 10Y*
- —
NLR vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | 1.46% | 56.50% | 14.26% | 36.67% | 2.29% | 13.63% | 3.49% | -0.56% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 10.48% | 13.85% | 7.24% | -8.94% | 21.61% | 11.49% | 1.80% | 10.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between NLR and DBMF is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.17 |
The correlation between NLR and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (5 years) to 0.32 (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
NLR vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank
NLR
DBMF
NLR vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) 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.
| NLR | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.68 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 1.47 | -0.35 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.78 | 4.48 | -3.70 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.72 | 16.18 | -14.46 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NLR vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NLR drawdown since its inception was -65.05%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NLR and DBMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NLR | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.05% | -20.39% | -44.66% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.72% | -6.10% | -23.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -30.48% | -15.60% | -14.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.48% | -20.39% | -10.09% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.35% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.34% | -1.72% | -21.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -35.70% | -6.56% | -29.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.41% | 1.68% | +11.73% |
Volatility
NLR vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a higher volatility of 14.21% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.68%. This indicates that NLR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NLR | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.21% | 2.68% | +11.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 33.77% | 10.00% | +23.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 43.06% | 12.37% | +30.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.61% | 12.55% | +17.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.25% | 12.41% | +11.84% |
NLR vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
NLR has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
NLR vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison
NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, less than DBMF's 5.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.18% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | 2.51% | 2.55% | 0.76% | 4.54% | 2.02% | 1.99% | 2.23% | 2.21% | 3.91% | 4.86% | 3.62% | 3.30% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NLR and DBMF have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NLR has higher volatility (14.21%) compared to DBMF (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs DBMF's -20.39%.
On 5-year performance, NLR leads with 20.95% vs 8.18% for DBMF. On fees, NLR is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, NLR has performed better with a 20.95% return vs 8.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NLR is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.18%, compared with 2.51% for NLR.
NLR is categorized as Uranium, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for NLR and 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 0.54), 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 NLR 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