USML vs. DBMF
USML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Minimum Volatility Factor TR ETN) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - USML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. USML is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, USML returned 7.85%/yr vs 7.93%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. USML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.
Performance
USML vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, USML achieves a 1.71% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 9.70% return.
USML
- 1D
- -1.73%
- 1M
- 3.16%
- YTD
- 1.71%
- 6M
- 1.67%
- 1Y
- 1.50%
- 3Y*
- 16.28%
- 5Y*
- 7.85%
- 10Y*
- —
DBMF
- 1D
- -2.01%
- 1M
- -0.10%
- YTD
- 9.70%
- 6M
- 11.78%
- 1Y
- 28.17%
- 3Y*
- 9.96%
- 5Y*
- 7.93%
- 10Y*
- —
USML vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USML ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Minimum Volatility Factor TR ETN | 1.71% | 9.33% | 23.97% | 11.37% | -22.87% | 42.12% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 9.70% | 13.85% | 7.24% | -8.94% | 21.61% | 7.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between USML and DBMF is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021 | 0.05 |
The correlation between USML and DBMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.03 (5 years) to 0.23 (1 year), 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
USML vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank
USML
DBMF
USML vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Minimum Volatility Factor TR ETN (USML) 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.
| USML | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 1.48 | -0.44 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.22 | 4.58 | -4.36 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.67 | 16.82 | -16.15 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| USML | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 | 2.26 | -2.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.32 | 0.63 | -0.31 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 0.74 | -0.32 |
Drawdowns
USML vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum USML drawdown since its inception was -35.34%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USML and DBMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| USML | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.34% | -20.39% | -14.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.09% | -6.10% | -6.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.14% | -15.60% | -3.54% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -35.34% | -20.39% | -14.95% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.86% | -2.42% | -2.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.40% | -6.58% | -3.82% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.35% | 1.66% | +2.69% |
Volatility
USML vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Minimum Volatility Factor TR ETN (USML) has a higher volatility of 4.58% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.88%. This indicates that USML'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| USML | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.58% | 2.88% | +1.70% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.57% | 10.00% | +1.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.45% | 12.35% | +4.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.47% | 12.55% | +11.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.29% | 12.43% | +11.86% |
USML vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
USML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
USML vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison
USML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.22%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.22% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% |
USML ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Minimum Volatility Factor TR ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
USML and DBMF have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
USML has higher volatility (4.58%) compared to DBMF (2.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USML dropped -35.34% vs DBMF's -20.39%.
On 5-year performance, DBMF leads with 7.93% vs 7.85% for USML. On fees, DBMF is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, DBMF has performed better with a 7.93% return vs 7.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DBMF is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for USML.
DBMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.22%, compared with 0.00% for USML.
USML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for USML and 0.85% for DBMF.
DBMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 0.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for USML and DBMF
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