| WTMF | DBMF | |
|---|---|---|
| Total return | +44.6% | +101.6% |
| Annualised (CAGR) | +3.8% | +9.9% |
| Volatility (annualised) | +6.2% | +11.0% |
| Sharpe (rf = 0) | 0.60 | 0.90 |
| Deepest drawdown | -14.8% | -20.4% |
| Drawdown peak → trough | 2016-10-19 → 2020-06-08 | 2022-10-20 → 2023-03-24 |
| Fee (annual expense ratio) | — | 0.85% |
| Dividend yield (12m distributions) | 2.71% (as of 2026-10-02) | 4.82% (as of 2026-10-02) |
Income: over the last 12 months DBMF distributed 4.82% of its price and WTMF 2.71% (percentages as of 2026-10-02 / 2026-10-02). Those are past distributions, not a promise of future income — and a lower-paying fund can still end up ahead once price changes are included; see how we count dividends.
Same window, same method: DBMF fell further at its worst (-20.4%) than WTMF (-14.8%). That difference — not the headline return — is usually what decides whether an investor stays in the fund through the bad part.
| Year | WTMF | DBMF |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | +12.2% | +18.9% | ▼
| 2025 | +12.2% | +13.8% | ▼
| 2024 | +3.2% | +7.2% | ▼
| 2023 | +16.7% | -8.9% | ▲
| 2022 | -6.5% | +21.5% | ▼
| 2021 | +9.5% | +11.4% | ▼
| 2020 | +0.5% | +1.8% | ▼
| 2019 | -2.7% | +10.7% | ▼
| 2018 | +0.2% | — |
| 2017 | -3.4% | — |
| 2016 | -1.4% | — |
It does not say which one to own. Two funds can look identical here and differ in what they hold, how they are taxed, or how they behave in the next drawdown.
More comparisons: ABFL vs INFL · INFL vs WTMF · DBMF vs SECT · Related funds: WTMF · DBMF · Funds · all comparisons