TMFS vs. CMDT
TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. TMFS is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFS returned 7.66%/yr vs 12.77%/yr for CMDT. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.
Performance
TMFS vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -0.78% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- -1.17%
- 1M
- 0.84%
- YTD
- -0.78%
- 6M
- -4.22%
- 1Y
- -1.24%
- 3Y*
- 7.66%
- 5Y*
- -2.26%
- 10Y*
- —
CMDT
- 1D
- -1.14%
- 1M
- -8.86%
- YTD
- 13.43%
- 6M
- 13.42%
- 1Y
- 21.34%
- 3Y*
- 12.77%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMFS vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | -0.78% | -1.59% | 15.41% | 12.95% |
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 13.43% | 12.78% | 6.93% | 5.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and CMDT is -0.04, 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 | -0.04 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2023 | 0.10 |
The correlation between TMFS and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (1 year) to 0.10 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
TMFS vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
CMDT
TMFS vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.
| TMFS | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.77 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.29 | -0.29 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.08 | 1.93 | -2.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.21 | 9.62 | -9.83 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and CMDT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -11.11% | -37.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | -11.11% | -4.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | -11.11% | -15.94% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.61% | -11.11% | -8.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.47% | -2.77% | -16.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.91% | 2.25% | +3.66% |
Volatility
TMFS vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison
Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a higher volatility of 5.81% compared to PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) at 3.26%. This indicates that TMFS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFS | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.81% | 3.26% | +2.55% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.28% | 10.60% | +3.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.01% | 12.65% | +7.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.01% | 12.24% | +10.77% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.50% | 12.24% | +13.26% |
TMFS vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFS vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison
TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CMDT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 2.67% | 3.04% | 8.80% | 2.71% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFS and CMDT have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TMFS has higher volatility (5.81%) compared to CMDT (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs CMDT's -11.11%.
On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 12.77% vs 7.66% for TMFS. On fees, CMDT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, CMDT has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 12.77% return vs 7.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CMDT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.
CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.
TMFS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.65% for CMDT.
CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs -0.06), 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.
Find the right allocation for TMFS and CMDT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer