RMIF vs. GHMS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS).

RMIF and GHMS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RMIF is an actively managed fund by Little Harbor Advisors. It was launched on Jun 8, 2023. GHMS is an actively managed fund by Goose Hollow. It was launched on Nov 14, 2023.

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.

RMIF vs. GHMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-1.49%	4.36%	7.00%	1.79%
GHMS Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF	0.00%	5.52%	2.30%	3.77%

Returns By Period

RMIF

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -1.27%
• YTD: -1.49%
• 6M: -0.40%
• 1Y: 2.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GHMS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: -1.26%
• 1Y: 2.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMIF vs. GHMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

RMIF

LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF

GHMS

Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF

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: 42
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 40

GHMS

GHMS Risk / Return Rank: 34
GHMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
GHMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
GHMS Omega Ratio Rank: 30
GHMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
GHMS Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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	0.85	0.57	+0.28
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.11	0.81	+0.30
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.13	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.10	1.22	-0.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.82	3.82	0.00
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 0.85, which is higher than the GHMS Sharpe Ratio of 0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMIF and GHMS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RMIF	GHMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85	0.57	+0.28
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.91	0.97	+0.93

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and GHMS is 0.14, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

RMIF vs. GHMS - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.63%, more than GHMS's 1.69% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.63%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%
GHMS Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF	1.69%	1.69%	4.48%	0.29%

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%	-4.61%	+2.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.95%	-2.44%	+0.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.31%	-1.11%	+0.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.68%	1.50%	-0.82%

Volatility

RMIF vs. GHMS - Volatility Comparison

LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) has a higher volatility of 1.56% 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	1.56%	0.00%	+1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.19%	3.89%	-1.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.15%	6.65%	-3.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.62%	5.57%	-2.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.62%	5.57%	-2.95%