RMIF vs. GHMS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) and GHMS (Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMIF returned 3.05% vs 2.44% for GHMS. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMIF charges 1.38%/yr vs 1.20%/yr for GHMS.

Performance

RMIF vs. GHMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

RMIF

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: -0.85%
• 6M: -0.51%
• 1Y: 3.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GHMS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 2.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMIF vs. GHMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.85%	4.36%	7.00%	1.79%
GHMS Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF	0.00%	5.52%	2.30%	3.77%

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and GHMS is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2023	0.13

Return for Risk

RMIF vs. GHMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 30
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 26

GHMS

GHMS Risk / Return Rank: 21
GHMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
GHMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
GHMS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
GHMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
GHMS Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

RMIF vs. GHMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS). 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.

	RMIF	GHMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.17	0.63	+0.54
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.70	1.00	+0.70
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.15	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	1.14	+0.16
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.58	1.67	+1.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RMIF vs. GHMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is higher than the GHMS Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMIF and GHMS, 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

	RMIF	GHMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.17	0.63	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.90	0.93	+0.96

Drawdowns

RMIF vs. GHMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMIF drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum GHMS drawdown of -4.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMIF and GHMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMIF	GHMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-4.73%	+1.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.37%	-2.73%	+0.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.31%	-2.44%	+1.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-1.21%	+0.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.86%	1.81%	-0.95%

Volatility

RMIF vs. GHMS - Volatility Comparison

LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) has a higher volatility of 0.72% compared to Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) at 0.00%. This indicates that RMIF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GHMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMIF	GHMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.72%	0.00%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.99%	1.74%	+0.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63%	4.97%	-2.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.59%	5.36%	-2.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.59%	5.36%	-2.77%

RMIF vs. GHMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMIF has a 1.38% expense ratio, which is higher than GHMS's 1.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMIF vs. GHMS - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.30%, more than GHMS's 1.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GHMS Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF	1.69%	1.69%	4.48%	0.29%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.30%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMIF and GHMS in my portfolio?

RMIF and GHMS have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RMIF or GHMS?

RMIF has higher volatility (0.72%) compared to GHMS (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMIF dropped -3.01% vs GHMS's -4.73%.

Which ETF is better, RMIF or GHMS?

On 1-year performance, RMIF leads with 3.05% vs 2.44% for GHMS. On fees, GHMS is cheaper at 1.20% per year. On volatility, GHMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMIF or GHMS?

Over the 1-year period, RMIF has performed better with a 3.05% return vs 2.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMIF or GHMS?

GHMS is cheaper with a 1.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.38% for RMIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RMIF or GHMS?

RMIF has the higher dividend yield at 5.30%, compared with 1.69% for GHMS.

What is the main difference between RMIF and GHMS?

They also come from different issuers: Little Harbor Advisors and Goose Hollow. Their fees differ too: 1.38% for RMIF and 1.20% for GHMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.17 vs 0.62), 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.