CTA vs. DFIV

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

CTA (Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and DFIV (Dimensional International Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CTA is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Simplify, while DFIV is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CTA returned 10.94%/yr vs 23.03%/yr for DFIV. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. CTA charges 0.78%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for DFIV.

Performance

CTA vs. DFIV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) and Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CTA achieves a 9.63% return, which is significantly lower than DFIV's 10.17% return.

CTA

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: -4.51%
• YTD: 9.63%
• 6M: 12.55%
• 1Y: 10.03%
• 3Y*: 10.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DFIV

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: -0.58%
• YTD: 10.17%
• 6M: 14.07%
• 1Y: 32.57%
• 3Y*: 23.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CTA vs. DFIV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	9.63%	0.88%	24.15%	-2.23%	9.55%
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	10.17%	45.36%	7.26%	17.75%	1.92%

Correlation

The correlation between CTA and DFIV is 0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 9, 2022	-0.14

The correlation between CTA and DFIV shifts across timeframes, from -0.14 (all time) to 0.01 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CTA vs. DFIV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CTA	DFIV
Basic Materials	-	10.9%
Communication Services	-	4.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.9%
Energy	-	16.4%
Healthcare	-	4.9%
Industrials	-	9.6%
Real Estate	-	1.8%
Technology	-	2.8%
Utilities	-	2.5%
Financial Services	-49.1%	32.4%

Return for Risk

CTA vs. DFIV — Risk / Return Rank

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

CTA

CTA Risk / Return Rank: 19
CTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
CTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
CTA Omega Ratio Rank: 18
CTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
CTA Martin Ratio Rank: 21

DFIV

DFIV Risk / Return Rank: 78
DFIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DFIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
DFIV Omega Ratio Rank: 79
DFIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
DFIV Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

CTA vs. DFIV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) and Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV). 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.

	CTA	DFIV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.50	2.36	-1.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.78	3.20	-2.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.42	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.92	3.39	-2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.32	13.05	-10.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CTA vs. DFIV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTA Sharpe Ratio is 0.50, which is lower than the DFIV Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTA and DFIV, 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

	CTA	DFIV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50	2.36	-1.86
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.91	-0.34

Drawdowns

CTA vs. DFIV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CTA drawdown since its inception was -18.07%, smaller than the maximum DFIV drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTA and DFIV.

Drawdown Indicators

	CTA	DFIV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.07%	-25.42%	+7.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.00%	-9.66%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.23%	-14.72%	+3.49%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.05%	-2.23%	-7.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.69%	-4.47%	-1.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.33%	2.50%	+1.83%

Volatility

CTA vs. DFIV - Volatility Comparison

Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) has a higher volatility of 6.73% compared to Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) at 3.83%. This indicates that CTA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFIV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CTA	DFIV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.73%	3.83%	+2.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.43%	11.26%	+6.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.21%	13.91%	+6.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	16.65%	-0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.59%	16.65%	-0.06%

CTA vs. DFIV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CTA has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is higher than DFIV's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

CTA vs. DFIV - Dividend Comparison

CTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.97%, more than DFIV's 2.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CTA Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF	4.97%	3.19%	4.80%	7.78%	6.58%	0.00%
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	2.59%	2.92%	3.88%	3.93%	3.84%	2.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CTA and DFIV in my portfolio?

CTA and DFIV have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CTA or DFIV?

CTA has higher volatility (6.73%) compared to DFIV (3.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CTA dropped -18.07% vs DFIV's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, CTA or DFIV?

On 3-year performance, DFIV leads with 23.03% vs 10.94% for CTA. On fees, DFIV is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, DFIV has been the lower-risk option at 3.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CTA or DFIV?

Over the 3-year period, DFIV has performed better with a 23.03% return vs 10.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CTA or DFIV?

DFIV is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for CTA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CTA or DFIV?

CTA has the higher dividend yield at 4.97%, compared with 2.59% for DFIV.

What is the main difference between CTA and DFIV?

CTA is categorized as Systematic Trend, while DFIV is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for CTA and 0.27% for DFIV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 0.50), 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.