TFPN vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TFPN (Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TFPN is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by Tidal ETFs, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TFPN returned 43.05% vs 26.10% for DBMF. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TFPN charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

TFPN vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TFPN achieves a 25.19% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 9.37% return.

TFPN

• 1D: -1.03%
• 1M: 2.11%
• YTD: 25.19%
• 6M: 22.97%
• 1Y: 43.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: -1.26%
• 1M: -1.67%
• YTD: 9.37%
• 6M: 8.47%
• 1Y: 26.10%
• 3Y*: 8.78%
• 5Y*: 7.97%
• 10Y*: —

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

TFPN vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	25.19%	3.61%	2.67%	-1.83%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	9.37%	13.85%	7.24%	-3.25%

Correlation

The correlation between TFPN and DBMF is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2023	0.29

The correlation between TFPN and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (all time) to 0.40 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TFPN vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

TFPN

TFPN Risk / Return Rank: 90
TFPN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
TFPN Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
TFPN Omega Ratio Rank: 90
TFPN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
TFPN Martin Ratio Rank: 90

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 74
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 78
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

TFPN vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). 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.

	TFPN	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.96	2.10	+0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.84	2.77	+1.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.44	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.79	4.30	+1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.17	15.28	+3.89

TFPN vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TFPN Sharpe Ratio is 2.96, which is higher than the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TFPN and DBMF, 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

TFPN vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TFPN drawdown since its inception was -16.72%, smaller than the maximum DBMF drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TFPN and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	TFPN	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.72%	-20.39%	+3.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.47%	-6.10%	-1.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.52%	-2.71%	+1.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.84%	-6.55%	+1.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.25%	1.71%	+0.54%

Volatility

TFPN vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN) has a higher volatility of 6.23% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 3.11%. This indicates that TFPN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TFPN	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.23%	3.11%	+3.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.52%	10.14%	+2.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.62%	12.47%	+2.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.84%	12.53%	+0.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.84%	12.41%	+0.43%

TFPN vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

TFPN has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

TFPN vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

TFPN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.23%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.23%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.94%	0.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TFPN and DBMF in my portfolio?

TFPN and DBMF have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TFPN or DBMF?

TFPN has higher volatility (6.23%) compared to DBMF (3.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TFPN dropped -16.72% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, TFPN or DBMF?

On 1-year performance, TFPN leads with 43.05% vs 26.10% for DBMF. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 3.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TFPN or DBMF?

Over the 1-year period, TFPN has performed better with a 43.05% return vs 26.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TFPN or DBMF?

DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for TFPN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TFPN or DBMF?

DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.23%, compared with 0.00% for TFPN.

What is the main difference between TFPN and DBMF?

TFPN is categorized as Global Allocation, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Tidal ETFs and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for TFPN and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TFPN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.96 vs 2.10), 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.