CFIT vs. GAA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CFIT (Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF) and GAA (Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CFIT is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by Cambria, while GAA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Cambria. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CFIT returned 13.11% vs 22.62% for GAA. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CFIT charges 0.71%/yr vs 0.41%/yr for GAA.

Performance

CFIT vs. GAA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) and Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CFIT achieves a 6.14% return, which is significantly lower than GAA's 9.39% return.

CFIT

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 2.43%
• YTD: 6.14%
• 6M: 6.20%
• 1Y: 13.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GAA

• 1D: -0.66%
• 1M: 1.35%
• YTD: 9.39%
• 6M: 11.23%
• 1Y: 22.62%
• 3Y*: 14.43%
• 5Y*: 6.37%
• 10Y*: 7.72%

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

CFIT vs. GAA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CFIT Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF	6.14%	3.59%
GAA Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF	9.39%	16.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CFIT and GAA is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2025	0.52

The correlation between CFIT and GAA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CFIT vs. GAA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CFIT

CFIT Risk / Return Rank: 69
CFIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
CFIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
CFIT Omega Ratio Rank: 76
CFIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
CFIT Martin Ratio Rank: 63

GAA

GAA Risk / Return Rank: 76
GAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
GAA Omega Ratio Rank: 76
GAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
GAA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

CFIT vs. GAA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) and Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA). 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.

	CFIT	GAA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	2.48	-0.08
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	3.50	-0.12
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.46	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	3.93	-0.86
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.57	15.04	-3.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CFIT vs. GAA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFIT Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the GAA Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFIT and GAA, 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

	CFIT	GAA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40	2.48	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.57	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	0.63	+0.92

Drawdowns

CFIT vs. GAA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFIT drawdown since its inception was -4.23%, smaller than the maximum GAA drawdown of -26.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFIT and GAA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFIT	GAA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-26.57%	+22.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.23%	-5.78%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.18%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.47%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-26.57%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.66%	+0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.21%	-3.85%	+2.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.12%	1.51%	-0.39%

Volatility

CFIT vs. GAA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) is 1.63%, while Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA) has a volatility of 2.60%. This indicates that CFIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GAA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CFIT	GAA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.63%	2.60%	-0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.37%	7.41%	-3.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.49%	9.19%	-3.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.45%	11.28%	-5.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.45%	11.09%	-5.64%

CFIT vs. GAA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFIT has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is higher than GAA's 0.41% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFIT vs. GAA - Dividend Comparison

CFIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%, more than GAA's 3.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CFIT Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF	4.07%	3.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GAA Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF	3.59%	4.24%	3.88%	3.73%	6.05%	4.21%	2.73%	3.32%	3.01%	2.36%	2.82%	2.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CFIT and GAA in my portfolio?

CFIT and GAA have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CFIT or GAA?

GAA has higher volatility (2.60%) compared to CFIT (1.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFIT dropped -4.23% vs GAA's -26.57%.

Which ETF is better, CFIT or GAA?

On 1-year performance, GAA leads with 22.62% vs 13.11% for CFIT. On fees, GAA is cheaper at 0.41% per year. On volatility, CFIT has been the lower-risk option at 1.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CFIT or GAA?

Over the 1-year period, GAA has performed better with a 22.62% return vs 13.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CFIT or GAA?

GAA is cheaper with a 0.41% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for CFIT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CFIT or GAA?

CFIT has the higher dividend yield at 4.07%, compared with 3.59% for GAA.

What is the main difference between CFIT and GAA?

CFIT is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while GAA is Diversified Portfolio. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for CFIT and 0.41% for GAA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.48 vs 2.40), 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.