TBFC vs. GMMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. TBFC is actively managed, while GMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 13.31% vs 8.28% for GMMA. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GMMA.

Performance

TBFC vs. GMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). 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 higher than GMMA's 1.98% return.

TBFC

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

GMMA

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 1.98%
• 6M: 1.78%
• 1Y: 8.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. GMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.58%	11.38%	-1.58%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	1.98%	8.95%	0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and GMMA is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.71

The correlation between TBFC and GMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. GMMA — 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

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 47
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. GMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA). 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	GMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	1.38	+0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	1.92	+0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.27	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.45	2.45	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.13	8.01	+2.12

TBFC vs. GMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is higher than the GMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC and GMMA, 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. GMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, which is greater than GMMA's maximum drawdown of -5.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and GMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	GMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-5.21%	-3.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-3.39%	-2.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.36%	-1.98%	+0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-1.24%	+0.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.32%	1.04%	+0.28%

Volatility

TBFC vs. GMMA - Volatility Comparison

The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) have volatilities of 3.03% and 3.12%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	GMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	3.12%	-0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	4.92%	+0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.89%	6.05%	+0.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.29%	7.34%	-0.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.29%	7.34%	-0.05%

TBFC vs. GMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than GMMA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. GMMA - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, less than GMMA's 3.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.70%	3.00%	0.57%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.96%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and GMMA in my portfolio?

TBFC and GMMA have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TBFC or GMMA?

GMMA has higher volatility (3.12%) compared to TBFC (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs GMMA's -5.21%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or GMMA?

On 1-year performance, TBFC leads with 13.31% vs 8.28% for GMMA. On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or GMMA?

Over the 1-year period, TBFC has performed better with a 13.31% return vs 8.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or GMMA?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GMMA.

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

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.70%, compared with 2.96% for TBFC.

What is the main difference between TBFC and GMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and GammaRoad Capital Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.75% for GMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.38), 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.