TBFG vs. ISCMF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TBFG is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by The Brinsmere Funds, while ISCMF is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index. TBFG is actively managed, while ISCMF is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFG returned 21.35% vs 31.30% for ISCMF. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. TBFG charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.

Performance

TBFG vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFG achieves a 8.68% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 22.87% return.

TBFG

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 0.04%
• YTD: 8.68%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 21.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ISCMF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -4.99%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 6M: 22.87%
• 1Y: 31.30%
• 3Y*: 16.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFG vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	8.68%	14.56%	10.20%
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF	22.87%	19.65%	3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFG and ISCMF is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	-0.00

Return for Risk

TBFG vs. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 67
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

ISCMF

ISCMF Risk / Return Rank: 78
ISCMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ISCMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
ISCMF Omega Ratio Rank: 98
ISCMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ISCMF Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. ISCMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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	ISCMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	1.76	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.18	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	2.31	-0.93
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	5.53	-2.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.85	11.85	0.00

TBFG vs. ISCMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the ISCMF Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFG and ISCMF, 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. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFG drawdown since its inception was -13.43%, smaller than the maximum ISCMF drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFG and ISCMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFG	ISCMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-25.42%	+11.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	-5.69%	-1.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.87%	-5.26%	+3.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.62%	-13.35%	+11.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	2.65%	-0.84%

Volatility

TBFG vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) is 4.66%, while iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) has a volatility of 5.11%. This indicates that TBFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFG	ISCMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.66%	5.11%	-0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	15.45%	-6.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.55%	17.84%	-7.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.18%	14.29%	-3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.18%	14.29%	-3.11%

TBFG vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFG has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFG vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison

TBFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.39%, while ISCMF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.39%	2.65%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFG and ISCMF in my portfolio?

TBFG and ISCMF have a correlation of -0.06, 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 ISCMF?

ISCMF has higher volatility (5.11%) compared to TBFG (4.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFG dropped -13.43% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, TBFG or ISCMF?

On 1-year performance, ISCMF leads with 31.30% vs 21.35% for TBFG. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, TBFG has been the lower-risk option at 4.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFG or ISCMF?

Over the 1-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 31.30% return vs 21.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFG or ISCMF?

ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for TBFG.

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

TBFG has the higher dividend yield at 2.39%, compared with 0.00% for ISCMF.

What is the main difference between TBFG and ISCMF?

TBFG is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while ISCMF is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: The Brinsmere Funds and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for TBFG and 0.19% for ISCMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.76), 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.