SWAN vs. DBMF
SWAN (Amplify BlackSwan Growth & Treasury Core ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SWAN is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the S-Network BlackSwan Core Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. SWAN is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, SWAN returned 3.05%/yr vs 8.01%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SWAN charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.
Performance
SWAN vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SWAN achieves a 3.83% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.27% return.
SWAN
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- 0.70%
- YTD
- 3.83%
- 6M
- 3.97%
- 1Y
- 15.52%
- 3Y*
- 12.40%
- 5Y*
- 3.05%
- 10Y*
- —
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- -1.31%
- YTD
- 10.27%
- 6M
- 11.24%
- 1Y
- 26.94%
- 3Y*
- 9.64%
- 5Y*
- 8.01%
- 10Y*
- —
SWAN vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWAN Amplify BlackSwan Growth & Treasury Core ETF | 3.83% | 13.93% | 13.44% | 12.07% | -27.77% | 10.55% | 16.17% | 11.56% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 10.27% | 13.85% | 7.24% | -8.94% | 21.61% | 11.49% | 1.80% | 10.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between SWAN and DBMF is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.04 |
Over the past year, SWAN and DBMF have become more correlated (0.31) than their long-term average of 0.04, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
SWAN vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank
SWAN
DBMF
SWAN vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify BlackSwan Growth & Treasury Core ETF (SWAN) 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.
| SWAN | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.47 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.09 | 4.50 | -2.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.04 | 16.30 | -8.26 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SWAN vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SWAN drawdown since its inception was -31.04%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SWAN and DBMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SWAN | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.04% | -20.39% | -10.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.05% | -6.10% | -0.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.07% | -15.60% | +3.53% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.04% | -20.39% | -10.65% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.92% | -1.91% | -0.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.85% | -6.56% | -2.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.83% | 1.68% | +0.15% |
Volatility
SWAN vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison
Amplify BlackSwan Growth & Treasury Core ETF (SWAN) has a higher volatility of 3.95% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.71%. This indicates that SWAN'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
| SWAN | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.95% | 2.71% | +1.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.78% | 10.00% | -2.22% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.78% | 12.35% | -2.57% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.39% | 12.55% | -1.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.49% | 12.41% | +0.08% |
SWAN vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
SWAN has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
SWAN vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison
SWAN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.83%, less than DBMF's 5.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.19% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% | 0.00% |
SWAN Amplify BlackSwan Growth & Treasury Core ETF | 2.83% | 2.86% | 2.54% | 2.98% | 2.12% | 5.04% | 1.64% | 3.69% | 0.29% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SWAN and DBMF have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SWAN has higher volatility (3.95%) compared to DBMF (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SWAN dropped -31.04% vs DBMF's -20.39%.
On 5-year performance, DBMF leads with 8.01% vs 3.05% for SWAN. On fees, SWAN is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 8.01% return vs 3.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SWAN is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.19%, compared with 2.83% for SWAN.
SWAN is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for SWAN and 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.50), 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 SWAN 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