TDSC vs. GMMA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TDSC (Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF) and GMMA (GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. TDSC is actively managed, while GMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, TDSC returned 16.85% vs 8.69% for GMMA. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. TDSC charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GMMA.

Performance

TDSC vs. GMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF (TDSC) 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, TDSC achieves a 9.77% return, which is significantly higher than GMMA's 3.33% return.

TDSC

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: -0.14%
• 6M: 6.11%
• YTD: 9.77%
• 1Y: 16.85%
• 3Y*: 9.32%
• 5Y*: 2.42%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.70%

GMMA

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.49%
• 6M: 2.39%
• YTD: 3.33%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.68%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	$2.91K	$2.88K	$4.62K
TDSC Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF	$120.89K	$454.17K	$283.51K

TDSC vs. GMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TDSC Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF	9.77%	6.56%	-1.28%
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.33%	8.95%	0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between TDSC and GMMA is 0.71, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.64

The correlation between TDSC and GMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TDSC vs. GMMA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TDSC

TDSC Risk / Return Rank: 78
TDSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TDSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
TDSC Omega Ratio Rank: 74
TDSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
TDSC Martin Ratio Rank: 81

GMMA

GMMA Risk / Return Rank: 52
GMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
GMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
GMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 57

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TDSC vs. GMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF (TDSC) 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.

	TDSC	GMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	1.18	+0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	1.66	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.22	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	2.26	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.78	6.90	+3.88

TDSC vs. GMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TDSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is higher than the GMMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TDSC 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

TDSC vs. GMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TDSC drawdown since its inception was -21.51%, which is greater than GMMA's maximum drawdown of -5.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TDSC and GMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	TDSC	GMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.51%	-5.21%	-16.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.35%	-3.39%	-1.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.24%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.77%	-0.68%	-1.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.17%	-1.23%	-7.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.50%	1.11%	+0.39%

Volatility

TDSC vs. GMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF (TDSC) is 2.16%, while GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF (GMMA) has a volatility of 2.45%. This indicates that TDSC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TDSC	GMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.16%	2.45%	-0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.32%	5.22%	+2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.36%	6.47%	+2.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.36%	7.38%	+2.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.23%	7.38%	+2.85%

TDSC vs. GMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

TDSC has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than GMMA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

TDSC vs. GMMA - Dividend Comparison

TDSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, less than GMMA's 3.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GMMA GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF	3.45%	3.00%	0.57%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TDSC Cabana Target Drawdown 10 ETF	1.61%	2.92%	2.06%	2.06%	1.76%	1.11%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TDSC and GMMA in my portfolio?

TDSC and GMMA have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TDSC or GMMA?

GMMA has higher volatility (2.45%) compared to TDSC (2.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TDSC dropped -21.51% vs GMMA's -5.21%.

Which ETF is better, TDSC or GMMA?

On 1-year performance, TDSC leads with 16.85% vs 8.69% for GMMA. On fees, TDSC is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, TDSC has been the lower-risk option at 2.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TDSC or GMMA?

Over the 1-year period, TDSC has performed better with a 16.85% return vs 8.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TDSC or GMMA?

TDSC is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GMMA.

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

GMMA has the higher dividend yield at 3.45%, compared with 1.61% for TDSC.

What is the main difference between TDSC and GMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and GammaRoad. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TDSC and 0.75% for GMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.18), 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.