DFAC vs. ESGU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DFAC (Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF) and ESGU (iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. DFAC is actively managed, while ESGU is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DFAC returned 11.69%/yr vs 11.91%/yr for ESGU. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. DFAC charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for ESGU.

Performance

DFAC vs. ESGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) and iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFAC achieves a 10.46% return, which is significantly higher than ESGU's 8.38% return.

DFAC

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 10.46%
• 6M: 9.33%
• 1Y: 25.95%
• 3Y*: 19.52%
• 5Y*: 11.69%
• 10Y*: —

ESGU

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: -1.03%
• YTD: 8.38%
• 6M: 7.35%
• 1Y: 23.73%
• 3Y*: 20.47%
• 5Y*: 11.91%
• 10Y*: —

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

DFAC vs. ESGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFAC Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF	10.46%	15.66%	19.61%	21.96%	-14.93%	9.55%
ESGU iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF	8.38%	16.90%	24.31%	25.79%	-20.27%	11.76%

Correlation

The correlation between DFAC and ESGU is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2021	0.96

The correlation between DFAC and ESGU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFAC vs. ESGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFAC	ESGU
Technology	31.2%	39.4%
Financial Services	13.8%	11.1%
Industrials	12.4%	8.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	9.3%
Healthcare	9.1%	8.9%
Communication Services	7.8%	9.9%
Energy	5.3%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	4.2%
Basic Materials	3.2%	1.9%
Utilities	1.8%	1.8%
Real Estate	0.2%	2.1%

Return for Risk

DFAC vs. ESGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFAC

DFAC Risk / Return Rank: 66
DFAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
DFAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
DFAC Omega Ratio Rank: 63
DFAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
DFAC Martin Ratio Rank: 74

ESGU

ESGU Risk / Return Rank: 58
ESGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
ESGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
ESGU Omega Ratio Rank: 56
ESGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
ESGU Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

DFAC vs. ESGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) and iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	DFAC	ESGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	1.86	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	2.52	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.33	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	2.58	+0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.40	11.27	+2.13

DFAC vs. ESGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFAC Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the ESGU Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFAC and ESGU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

DFAC vs. ESGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFAC drawdown since its inception was -23.12%, smaller than the maximum ESGU drawdown of -33.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFAC and ESGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFAC	ESGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.12%	-33.87%	+10.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.49%	-9.26%	+0.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.02%	-19.32%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.12%	-26.15%	+3.03%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.07%	-3.19%	+1.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-4.88%	-0.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.94%	2.11%	-0.17%

Volatility

DFAC vs. ESGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) is 4.56%, while iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU) has a volatility of 4.97%. This indicates that DFAC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ESGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFAC	ESGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.56%	4.97%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.73%	10.11%	-0.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.64%	12.81%	-0.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.15%	17.42%	-0.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	18.60%	-1.46%

DFAC vs. ESGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFAC has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is higher than ESGU's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

DFAC vs. ESGU - Dividend Comparison

DFAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, less than ESGU's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DFAC Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF	0.92%	0.97%	1.03%	1.20%	1.50%	0.88%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ESGU iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF	0.95%	0.99%	1.18%	1.43%	1.58%	1.06%	1.27%	1.32%	1.73%	1.82%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFAC and ESGU in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, DFAC and ESGU move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, DFAC or ESGU?

ESGU has higher volatility (4.97%) compared to DFAC (4.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFAC dropped -23.12% vs ESGU's -33.87%.

Which ETF is better, DFAC or ESGU?

On 5-year performance, ESGU leads with 11.91% vs 11.69% for DFAC. On fees, ESGU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, DFAC has been the lower-risk option at 4.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFAC or ESGU?

Over the 5-year period, ESGU has performed better with a 11.91% return vs 11.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFAC or ESGU?

ESGU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.17% for DFAC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DFAC or ESGU?

ESGU has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.92% for DFAC.

What is the main difference between DFAC and ESGU?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for DFAC and 0.15% for ESGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.86), 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.