Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DBMF vs IUSB: how they differ
DBMF is an equity index fund and IUSB a bond index fund, and over the year DBMF returned more, +25.4% against −0.3%.
iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF and iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF.
| DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | IUSB iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iMGP | iShares |
| What it is | iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy | Core Universal USD Bond |
| Total return, 1 year | +25.4% | −0.3% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +7.9 pts | −17.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.85% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | not filed | 17819 |
DBMF in plain words
DBMF is an index equity fund tracking the iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +25.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.85% a year.
IUSB in plain words
IUSB is a bond fund tracking the Core Universal USD Bond. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −0.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DBMF or IUSB?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DBMF returned +25.4% and IUSB returned −0.3%, so DBMF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DBMF or IUSB?
- DBMF charges 0.85% a year and IUSB charges 0.06%, so IUSB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DBMF against IUSB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DBMF-IUSB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources