TBFC vs. ELM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 13.31% vs 17.21% for ELM. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for ELM.

Performance

TBFC vs. ELM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFC achieves a 4.58% return, which is significantly lower than ELM's 6.28% return.

TBFC

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: 0.01%
• YTD: 4.58%
• 6M: 4.32%
• 1Y: 13.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ELM

• 1D: -1.43%
• 1M: -0.17%
• YTD: 6.28%
• 6M: 6.39%
• 1Y: 17.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. ELM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.58%	9.22%
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	6.28%	11.88%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and ELM is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 11, 2025	0.91

The correlation between TBFC and ELM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. ELM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 63
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

ELM

ELM Risk / Return Rank: 56
ELM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
ELM Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
ELM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
ELM Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ELM Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

TBFC vs. ELM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). 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.

	TBFC	ELM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	1.77	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	2.47	+0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.33	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.45	2.30	+0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.13	9.37	+0.76

TBFC vs. ELM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the ELM Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC and ELM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. ELM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, roughly equal to the maximum ELM drawdown of -9.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and ELM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	ELM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-9.02%	+0.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-7.52%	+2.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.36%	-1.76%	+0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-1.32%	+0.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.32%	1.84%	-0.52%

Volatility

TBFC vs. ELM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) is 3.03%, while Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) has a volatility of 3.63%. This indicates that TBFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ELM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	ELM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	3.63%	-0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	8.11%	-2.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.89%	9.79%	-2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.29%	10.46%	-3.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.29%	10.46%	-3.17%

TBFC vs. ELM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than ELM's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. ELM - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, more than ELM's 2.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	2.55%	2.71%	0.00%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.96%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and ELM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, TBFC and ELM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, TBFC or ELM?

ELM has higher volatility (3.63%) compared to TBFC (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs ELM's -9.02%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or ELM?

On 1-year performance, ELM leads with 17.21% vs 13.31% for TBFC. On fees, ELM is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 3.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or ELM?

Over the 1-year period, ELM has performed better with a 17.21% return vs 13.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or ELM?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TBFC or ELM?

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 2.55% for ELM.

What is the main difference between TBFC and ELM?

They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and Elm. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.24% for ELM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.77), 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.