TBFC vs. TBFG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 15.23% vs 24.15% for TBFG. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for TBFG.

Performance

TBFC vs. TBFG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFC achieves a 5.77% return, which is significantly lower than TBFG's 10.44% return.

TBFC

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 2.07%
• YTD: 5.77%
• 6M: 6.35%
• 1Y: 15.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFG

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 10.44%
• 6M: 11.28%
• 1Y: 24.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. TBFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	5.77%	11.38%	8.18%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	10.44%	14.56%	10.48%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and TBFG is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2024	0.98

The correlation between TBFC and TBFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

TBFC vs. TBFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TBFC	TBFG
Technology	21.1%	21.5%
Financial Services	18.0%	17.7%
Industrials	12.7%	13.3%
Healthcare	8.9%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	8.4%
Energy	7.3%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	5.8%
Communication Services	6.0%	6.0%
Basic Materials	5.7%	6.0%
Utilities	3.8%	3.4%
Real Estate	2.1%	2.4%

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. TBFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 71
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 66

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. TBFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). 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.

	TBFC	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	2.49	-0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	3.49	-0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.46	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	3.18	-0.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.86	13.74	-1.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TBFC vs. TBFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the TBFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC and TBFG, 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

	TBFC	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	2.49	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.51	1.39	+0.12

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. TBFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, smaller than the maximum TBFG drawdown of -13.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and TBFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	TBFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-13.43%	+4.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-7.63%	+2.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	-0.28%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-1.62%	+0.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.29%	1.76%	-0.47%

Volatility

TBFC vs. TBFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) is 2.06%, while The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a volatility of 2.91%. This indicates that TBFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TBFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	TBFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.06%	2.91%	-0.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.24%	8.00%	-2.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.35%	9.73%	-3.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.14%	10.94%	-3.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.14%	10.94%	-3.80%

TBFC vs. TBFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFG's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. TBFG - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.93%, more than TBFG's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.93%	3.28%	2.98%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.35%	2.65%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and TBFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, TBFC and TBFG 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 TBFG?

TBFG has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to TBFC (2.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs TBFG's -13.43%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or TBFG?

On 1-year performance, TBFG leads with 24.15% vs 15.23% for TBFC. On fees, TBFG is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 2.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or TBFG?

Over the 1-year period, TBFG has performed better with a 24.15% return vs 15.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or TBFG?

TBFG is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

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

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 2.93%, compared with 2.35% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between TBFC and TBFG?

They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and The Brinsmere Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.42% for TBFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 2.41), 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.