RPAR vs. GDMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RPAR (RPAR Risk Parity ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both Hedge Fund funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, RPAR returned 1.76%/yr vs 7.66%/yr for GDMA. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RPAR charges 0.51%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.

Performance

RPAR vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RPAR achieves a 7.53% return, which is significantly lower than GDMA's 11.18% return.

RPAR

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 1.78%
• YTD: 7.53%
• 6M: 7.10%
• 1Y: 21.22%
• 3Y*: 9.22%
• 5Y*: 1.76%
• 10Y*: —

GDMA

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 1.83%
• YTD: 11.18%
• 6M: 14.08%
• 1Y: 32.26%
• 3Y*: 16.91%
• 5Y*: 7.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

RPAR vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RPAR RPAR Risk Parity ETF	7.53%	17.91%	0.06%	6.03%	-22.82%	7.56%	19.40%	0.11%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	11.18%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	3.95%	21.08%	0.72%

Correlation

The correlation between RPAR and GDMA is 0.56, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2019	0.39

The correlation between RPAR and GDMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (5 years) to 0.56 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RPAR vs. GDMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RPAR	GDMA
Financial Services	35.9%	14.5%
Basic Materials	6.4%	9.0%
Energy	5.9%	10.0%
Healthcare	5.1%	5.5%
Communication Services	4.9%	7.0%
Industrials	2.1%	14.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.3%	3.5%
Utilities	0.2%	2.4%
Technology	0.1%	23.4%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	8.8%
Real Estate	-0.0%	1.6%

Return for Risk

RPAR vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RPAR

RPAR Risk / Return Rank: 57
RPAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
RPAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
RPAR Omega Ratio Rank: 60
RPAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
RPAR Martin Ratio Rank: 51

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 74
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

RPAR vs. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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.

	RPAR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.47	-0.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	3.21	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.47	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	4.30	-1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.71	11.92	-3.21
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RPAR vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPAR and GDMA, 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

	RPAR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	2.47	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.14	0.80	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.89	-0.53

Drawdowns

RPAR vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPAR drawdown since its inception was -30.16%, which is greater than GDMA's maximum drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPAR and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPAR	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-16.66%	-13.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.10%	-7.53%	-0.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.20%	-7.53%	-5.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.16%	-12.74%	-17.42%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.64%	-1.06%	-1.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.61%	-3.78%	-7.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.44%	2.71%	-0.27%

Volatility

RPAR vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR) is 3.56%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that RPAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RPAR	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.56%	6.18%	-2.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.37%	10.03%	-1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.20%	13.12%	-2.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.40%	9.67%	+2.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.69%	10.97%	+1.72%

RPAR vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RPAR has a 0.51% expense ratio, which is lower than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

RPAR vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

RPAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.07%, less than GDMA's 2.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.51%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
RPAR RPAR Risk Parity ETF	2.07%	2.55%	2.51%	3.16%	4.01%	2.02%	0.76%	0.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPAR and GDMA in my portfolio?

RPAR and GDMA have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RPAR or GDMA?

GDMA has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to RPAR (3.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPAR dropped -30.16% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, RPAR or GDMA?

On 5-year performance, GDMA leads with 7.66% vs 1.76% for RPAR. On fees, RPAR is cheaper at 0.51% per year. On volatility, RPAR has been the lower-risk option at 3.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RPAR or GDMA?

Over the 5-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 7.66% return vs 1.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPAR or GDMA?

RPAR is cheaper with a 0.51% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RPAR or GDMA?

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 2.07% for RPAR.

What is the main difference between RPAR and GDMA?

They also come from different issuers: Toroso Investments and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 0.51% for RPAR and 0.77% for GDMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 2.09), 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.