TBFG vs. GMMA

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) and GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. TBFG is actively managed, while GMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFG returned 20.72% vs 7.95% for GMMA. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TBFG charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GMMA.

Performance

TBFG vs. GMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) 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, TBFG achieves a 9.09% return, which is significantly higher than GMMA's 1.76% return.

TBFG

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: -0.66%
• YTD: 9.09%
• 6M: 8.40%
• 1Y: 20.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GMMA

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: -1.34%
• YTD: 1.76%
• 6M: 1.40%
• 1Y: 7.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFG vs. GMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	9.09%	14.56%	-0.39%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	1.76%	8.95%	0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFG and GMMA is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.74

The correlation between TBFG and GMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TBFG vs. GMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 69
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 71
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 71

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 45
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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.

TBFG vs. GMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	TBFG	GMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	1.32	+0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	1.84	+0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.26	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.73	2.36	+0.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.46	7.56	+3.90

TBFG vs. GMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is higher than the GMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFG 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

TBFG vs. GMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFG drawdown since its inception was -13.43%, which is greater than GMMA's maximum drawdown of -5.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFG and GMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFG	GMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-5.21%	-8.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	-3.39%	-4.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.50%	-2.18%	+0.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.62%	-1.24%	-0.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	1.05%	+0.76%

Volatility

TBFG vs. GMMA - Volatility Comparison

The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a higher volatility of 4.55% compared to GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) at 3.09%. This indicates that TBFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFG	GMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.55%	3.09%	+1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	4.90%	+4.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.50%	6.03%	+4.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.17%	7.33%	+3.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.17%	7.33%	+3.84%

TBFG vs. GMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFG has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than GMMA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFG vs. GMMA - Dividend Comparison

TBFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%, less than GMMA's 3.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.71%	3.00%	0.57%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.41%	2.65%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFG and GMMA in my portfolio?

TBFG and GMMA have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TBFG or GMMA?

TBFG has higher volatility (4.55%) compared to GMMA (3.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFG dropped -13.43% vs GMMA's -5.21%.

Which ETF is better, TBFG or GMMA?

On 1-year performance, TBFG leads with 20.72% vs 7.95% for GMMA. On fees, TBFG is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, GMMA has been the lower-risk option at 3.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFG or GMMA?

Over the 1-year period, TBFG has performed better with a 20.72% return vs 7.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFG or GMMA?

TBFG is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GMMA.

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

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.71%, compared with 2.41% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between TBFG and GMMA?

They also come from different issuers: The Brinsmere Funds and GammaRoad Capital Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for TBFG and 0.75% for GMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.32), 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.