PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO
PFMS.TO (Picton Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund ETF) and RGBM.TO (Return Stacked Global Balanced & Macro ETF) are both Multistrategy funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PFMS.TO returned 16.05% vs 23.31% for RGBM.TO. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. PFMS.TO charges 4.83%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for RGBM.TO.
Performance
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PFMS.TO achieves a 7.43% return, which is significantly lower than RGBM.TO's 15.71% return.
PFMS.TO
- 1D
- 0.19%
- 1M
- 1.57%
- 6M
- 3.65%
- YTD
- 7.43%
- 1Y
- 16.05%
- 3Y*
- 12.43%
- 5Y*
- 6.24%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 7.09%
RGBM.TO
- 1D
- -1.46%
- 1M
- -1.22%
- 6M
- 16.14%
- YTD
- 15.71%
- 1Y
- 23.31%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 8.56%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA$50.37K | CA$34.59K | CA$33.22K | |
| CA$10.59K | CA$14.37K | CA$15.28K |
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PFMS.TO Picton Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund ETF | 7.43% | 11.95% |
RGBM.TO Return Stacked Global Balanced & Macro ETF | 15.71% | -2.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between PFMS.TO and RGBM.TO is 0.16, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2025 | 0.15 |
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
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO — Risk / Return Rank
PFMS.TO
RGBM.TO
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Picton Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund ETF (PFMS.TO) and Return Stacked Global Balanced & Macro ETF (RGBM.TO). 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.
| PFMS.TO | RGBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.23 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.38 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.18 | 3.69 | -0.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.89 | 9.23 | +1.66 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PFMS.TO drawdown since its inception was -23.00%, which is greater than RGBM.TO's maximum drawdown of -15.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFMS.TO and RGBM.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PFMS.TO | RGBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.00% | -15.89% | -7.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.07% | -6.19% | +1.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.36% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.11% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.16% | -3.41% | +2.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.79% | -4.52% | +0.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.48% | 2.47% | -0.99% |
Volatility
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Picton Multi-Strategy Alternative Fund ETF (PFMS.TO) is 1.55%, while Return Stacked Global Balanced & Macro ETF (RGBM.TO) has a volatility of 3.49%. This indicates that PFMS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RGBM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PFMS.TO | RGBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.55% | 3.49% | -1.94% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.85% | 7.40% | -1.55% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.30% | 10.79% | -1.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.67% | 12.79% | -1.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.69% | 12.79% | +0.90% |
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
PFMS.TO has a 4.83% expense ratio, which is higher than RGBM.TO's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
PFMS.TO vs. RGBM.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither PFMS.TO nor RGBM.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PFMS.TO and RGBM.TO have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RGBM.TO is cheaper at 0.85% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RGBM.TO is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 4.83% for PFMS.TO.
They also come from different issuers: Picton and Return Stacked. Their fees differ too: 4.83% for PFMS.TO and 0.85% for RGBM.TO.
Find the right allocation for PFMS.TO and RGBM.TO
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