BLDG vs. DFAR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BLDG (Cambria Global Real Estate ETF) and DFAR (Dimensional US Real Estate ETF) are both REIT funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BLDG returned 9.14%/yr vs 10.49%/yr for DFAR. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BLDG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for DFAR.

Performance

BLDG vs. DFAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG) and Dimensional US Real Estate ETF (DFAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLDG achieves a 6.82% return, which is significantly lower than DFAR's 13.39% return.

BLDG

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 0.01%
• YTD: 6.82%
• 6M: 6.29%
• 1Y: 11.06%
• 3Y*: 9.14%
• 5Y*: 2.40%
• 10Y*: —

DFAR

• 1D: 1.73%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 13.39%
• 6M: 12.60%
• 1Y: 13.32%
• 3Y*: 10.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BLDG vs. DFAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	6.82%	4.26%	8.18%	1.76%	-9.99%
DFAR Dimensional US Real Estate ETF	13.39%	1.31%	5.25%	11.04%	-14.30%

Correlation

The correlation between BLDG and DFAR is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2022	0.83

The correlation between BLDG and DFAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLDG vs. DFAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLDG	DFAR
Real Estate	98.6%	99.8%
Financial Services	1.4%	0.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BLDG vs. DFAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BLDG

BLDG Risk / Return Rank: 27
BLDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
BLDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
BLDG Omega Ratio Rank: 26
BLDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
BLDG Martin Ratio Rank: 28

DFAR

DFAR Risk / Return Rank: 30
DFAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
DFAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
DFAR Omega Ratio Rank: 28
DFAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
DFAR Martin Ratio Rank: 33

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BLDG vs. DFAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG) and Dimensional US Real Estate ETF (DFAR). 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.

	BLDG	DFAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	1.01	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.45	1.43	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.18	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.10	1.59	-0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.88	4.99	-1.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BLDG vs. DFAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLDG Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is comparable to the DFAR Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLDG and DFAR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BLDG	DFAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00	1.01	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.18	+0.28

Drawdowns

BLDG vs. DFAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLDG drawdown since its inception was -27.25%, smaller than the maximum DFAR drawdown of -32.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLDG and DFAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLDG	DFAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.25%	-32.27%	+5.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.08%	-8.43%	-1.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.57%	-17.64%	-0.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.96%	-1.33%	-0.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-14.21%	+4.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	2.68%	+0.18%

Volatility

BLDG vs. DFAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG) is 3.58%, while Dimensional US Real Estate ETF (DFAR) has a volatility of 4.09%. This indicates that BLDG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DFAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BLDG	DFAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.58%	4.09%	-0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.26%	9.54%	-1.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.09%	13.21%	-2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.27%	19.14%	-3.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.54%	19.14%	-3.60%

BLDG vs. DFAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLDG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than DFAR's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLDG vs. DFAR - Dividend Comparison

BLDG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.68%, more than DFAR's 2.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	5.68%	7.46%	7.97%	4.99%	3.99%	10.40%	0.59%
DFAR Dimensional US Real Estate ETF	2.72%	2.97%	2.89%	3.06%	1.69%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLDG and DFAR in my portfolio?

BLDG and DFAR have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLDG or DFAR?

DFAR has higher volatility (4.09%) compared to BLDG (3.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLDG dropped -27.25% vs DFAR's -32.27%.

Which ETF is better, BLDG or DFAR?

On 3-year performance, DFAR leads with 10.49% vs 9.14% for BLDG. On fees, DFAR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, BLDG has been the lower-risk option at 3.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLDG or DFAR?

Over the 3-year period, DFAR has performed better with a 10.49% return vs 9.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLDG or DFAR?

DFAR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BLDG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLDG or DFAR?

BLDG has the higher dividend yield at 5.68%, compared with 2.72% for DFAR.

What is the main difference between BLDG and DFAR?

They also come from different issuers: Cambria and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BLDG and 0.19% for DFAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs 1.00), 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.