TBFC vs. GMOD

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and GMOD (GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for GMOD.

Performance

TBFC vs. GMOD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFC achieves a 5.07% return, which is significantly lower than GMOD's 7.76% return.

TBFC

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.04%
• 6M: 3.63%
• YTD: 5.07%
• 1Y: 12.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GMOD

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 0.37%
• 6M: 5.53%
• YTD: 7.76%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. GMOD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	5.07%	1.97%
GMOD GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF	7.76%	4.35%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and GMOD is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2025	0.93

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. GMOD — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 64
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 63

GMOD

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. GMOD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF (GMOD). 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	GMOD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.18	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.92	—	—

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. GMOD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, which is greater than GMOD's maximum drawdown of -6.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and GMOD.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	GMOD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-6.50%	-2.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.89%	-0.30%	-0.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-1.10%	+0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.33%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	GMOD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.56%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.92%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.89%	8.88%	-1.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.26%	8.88%	-1.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.26%	8.88%	-1.62%

TBFC vs. GMOD - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than GMOD's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. GMOD - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.01%, more than GMOD's 1.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GMOD GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF	1.36%	0.93%	0.00%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	3.01%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and GMOD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, TBFC and GMOD 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 ETF is better, TBFC or GMOD?

On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or GMOD?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for GMOD.

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

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 1.36% for GMOD.

What is the main difference between TBFC and GMOD?

They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and GMO. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.50% for GMOD.