CFIT vs. GVAL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CFIT (Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF) and GVAL (Cambria Global Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CFIT is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by Cambria, while GVAL is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Cambria. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CFIT returned 13.11% vs 41.82% for GVAL. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CFIT charges 0.71%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for GVAL.

Performance

CFIT vs. GVAL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) and Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL). 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 GVAL's 15.81% return.

CFIT

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

GVAL

• 1D: 1.17%
• 1M: 3.68%
• YTD: 15.81%
• 6M: 17.36%
• 1Y: 41.82%
• 3Y*: 26.94%
• 5Y*: 13.60%
• 10Y*: 10.90%

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

CFIT vs. GVAL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CFIT Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF	6.14%	3.59%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	15.81%	30.79%

Correlation

The correlation between CFIT and GVAL is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2025	0.55

The correlation between CFIT and GVAL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CFIT vs. GVAL — 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

GVAL

GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 81
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 85
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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. GVAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) and Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL). 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	GVAL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	2.91	-0.51
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	3.83	-0.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.52	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	3.75	-0.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.57	14.46	-2.89
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. GVAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CFIT Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the GVAL Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CFIT and GVAL, 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	GVAL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40	2.91	-0.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.74	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.57	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	0.36	+1.19

Drawdowns

CFIT vs. GVAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CFIT drawdown since its inception was -4.23%, smaller than the maximum GVAL drawdown of -46.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CFIT and GVAL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CFIT	GVAL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-46.82%	+42.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.23%	-11.50%	+7.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.72%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.83%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.21%	-13.88%	+12.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.12%	2.98%	-1.86%

Volatility

CFIT vs. GVAL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) is 1.63%, while Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) has a volatility of 5.08%. This indicates that CFIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GVAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CFIT	GVAL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.63%	5.08%	-3.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.37%	12.64%	-8.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.49%	14.48%	-8.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.45%	18.46%	-13.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.45%	19.21%	-13.76%

CFIT vs. GVAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CFIT has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is higher than GVAL's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

CFIT vs. GVAL - Dividend Comparison

CFIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%, more than GVAL's 2.79% 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%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	2.79%	2.93%	4.75%	6.12%	5.05%	2.97%	1.90%	2.84%	4.65%	2.00%	2.54%	2.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CFIT and GVAL in my portfolio?

CFIT and GVAL have a correlation of 0.59, 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 GVAL?

GVAL has higher volatility (5.08%) compared to CFIT (1.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CFIT dropped -4.23% vs GVAL's -46.82%.

Which ETF is better, CFIT or GVAL?

On 1-year performance, GVAL leads with 41.82% vs 13.11% for CFIT. On fees, GVAL is cheaper at 0.64% 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 GVAL?

Over the 1-year period, GVAL has performed better with a 41.82% 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 GVAL?

GVAL is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for CFIT.

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

CFIT has the higher dividend yield at 4.07%, compared with 2.79% for GVAL.

What is the main difference between CFIT and GVAL?

CFIT is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while GVAL is Global Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for CFIT and 0.64% for GVAL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 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.