DBMF vs VTI
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. DBMF delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | DBMF | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.85% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $2.1B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.16% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 12 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +12.30% | +13.87% | |
| 1Y Return | +28.68% | +23.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.44% | +21.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.20% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.6% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -20.4% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iMGP Funds | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | May 7, 2019 | May 24, 2001 |
DBMF vs VTI Performance
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is a ETF from iMGP Funds and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year DBMF returned +28.68% while VTI returned +23.31%. Year to date, DBMF is up 12.30% versus a gain of 13.87% for VTI.
Over three years, DBMF compounded at +9.44% per year against +21.17% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +9.20% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.13% annualized vs +7.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 11.6% for DBMF. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -20.4% for DBMF and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.15. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
DBMF charges 0.85% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $85 vs $3 annually, a gap of $82 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DBMF currently yields 5.16% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
DBMF and VTI share 0 holdings out of 2784 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, DBMF or VTI?
DBMF has an expense ratio of 0.85% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $82 per year of difference.
Which performed better, DBMF or VTI?
Over the past year DBMF returned +28.68% vs +23.31% for VTI, so DBMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), DBMF annualized +7.89% vs +8.13% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, DBMF or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 11.6% for DBMF. Worst drawdown: DBMF -20.4% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both DBMF and VTI?
DBMF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.15, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between DBMF and VTI?
DBMF and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2784 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, DBMF or VTI?
DBMF yields 5.16% while VTI yields 1.07%, so DBMF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.