TFPN vs. GDMA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TFPN (Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both Global Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TFPN returned 6.27%/yr vs 16.04%/yr for GDMA. Their 0.42 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. TFPN charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.

Performance

TFPN vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TFPN achieves a 16.44% return, which is significantly higher than GDMA's 10.56% return.

TFPN

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: -1.64%
• 6M: 5.45%
• YTD: 16.44%
• 1Y: 29.78%
• 3Y*: 6.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.62%

GDMA

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 2.38%
• 6M: 1.94%
• YTD: 10.56%
• 1Y: 25.16%
• 3Y*: 16.04%
• 5Y*: 8.45%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.45%

*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)
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	$1.65M	$1.00M	$708.66K
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	$429.91K	$568.98K	$358.90K

TFPN vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TFPN Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF	16.44%	3.61%	2.67%	-1.83%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	10.56%	25.29%	7.44%	6.29%

Correlation

The correlation between TFPN and GDMA is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2023	0.42

Return for Risk

TFPN vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

TFPN

TFPN Risk / Return Rank: 75
TFPN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TFPN Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
TFPN Omega Ratio Rank: 75
TFPN Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
TFPN Martin Ratio Rank: 71

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 67
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

TFPN vs. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	1.49	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.37	1.97	+0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.28	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	3.12	-0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.82	7.24	+1.58

TFPN vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TFPN Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TFPN and GDMA, 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. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TFPN drawdown since its inception was -16.72%, roughly equal to the maximum GDMA drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TFPN and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	TFPN	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.72%	-16.66%	-0.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.94%	-7.53%	-3.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.72%	-7.53%	-9.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-12.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.40%	-3.21%	-5.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.91%	-3.79%	-1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.25%	3.24%	+0.01%

Volatility

TFPN vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN) has a higher volatility of 7.02% compared to Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) at 3.27%. This indicates that TFPN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TFPN	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.02%	3.27%	+3.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.85%	13.20%	+0.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.24%	15.80%	+0.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.35%	10.24%	+3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.35%	11.39%	+1.96%

TFPN vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

TFPN has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

TFPN vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

TFPN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.53%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
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 GDMA in my portfolio?

TFPN and GDMA have a correlation of 0.48, 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 GDMA?

TFPN has higher volatility (7.02%) compared to GDMA (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TFPN dropped -16.72% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, TFPN or GDMA?

On 3-year performance, GDMA leads with 16.04% vs 6.27% for TFPN. On fees, GDMA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, GDMA has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TFPN or GDMA?

Over the 3-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 16.04% return vs 6.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TFPN or GDMA?

GDMA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for TFPN.

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

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.53%, compared with 0.00% for TFPN.

What is the main difference between TFPN and GDMA?

They also come from different issuers: Tidal and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for TFPN and 0.77% for GDMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TFPN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.49), 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.