DFAT vs. DFUV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DFAT (Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF) and DFUV (Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DFAT is a Small Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional, while DFUV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, DFAT returned 16.49%/yr vs 19.61%/yr for DFUV. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DFAT charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for DFUV.

Performance

DFAT vs. DFUV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) and Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF (DFUV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFAT achieves a 13.26% return, which is significantly lower than DFUV's 16.95% return.

DFAT

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 1.45%
• YTD: 13.26%
• 6M: 13.13%
• 1Y: 30.02%
• 3Y*: 16.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DFUV

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 5.54%
• YTD: 16.95%
• 6M: 18.53%
• 1Y: 34.65%
• 3Y*: 19.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DFAT vs. DFUV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
DFAT Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF	13.26%	8.73%	7.80%	20.86%	3.45%
DFUV Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF	16.95%	15.77%	11.79%	13.25%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between DFAT and DFUV is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022	0.93

The correlation between DFAT and DFUV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFAT vs. DFUV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFAT	DFUV
Financial Services	28.0%	21.9%
Industrials	15.9%	13.6%
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	7.2%
Energy	11.5%	12.9%
Technology	9.2%	15.7%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	3.4%
Healthcare	6.2%	13.7%
Basic Materials	5.1%	6.0%
Communication Services	1.8%	5.1%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.4%
Utilities	0.4%	0.1%

Return for Risk

DFAT vs. DFUV — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFAT

DFAT Risk / Return Rank: 55
DFAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
DFAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
DFAT Omega Ratio Rank: 51
DFAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
DFAT Martin Ratio Rank: 57

DFUV

DFUV Risk / Return Rank: 88
DFUV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
DFUV Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
DFUV Omega Ratio Rank: 85
DFUV Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
DFUV Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

DFAT vs. DFUV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) and Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF (DFUV). 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.

	DFAT	DFUV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	2.96	-1.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.67	4.12	-1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.52	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	5.80	-2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.13	21.03	-10.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFAT vs. DFUV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is lower than the DFUV Sharpe Ratio of 2.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFAT and DFUV, 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

	DFAT	DFUV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.81	2.96	-1.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.90	-0.45

Drawdowns

DFAT vs. DFUV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFAT drawdown since its inception was -26.12%, which is greater than DFUV's maximum drawdown of -17.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFAT and DFUV.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFAT	DFUV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.12%	-17.60%	-8.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.55%	-6.01%	-3.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.12%	-17.60%	-8.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.75%	-0.11%	-0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.24%	-3.65%	-2.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.97%	1.65%	+1.32%

Volatility

DFAT vs. DFUV - Volatility Comparison

Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) has a higher volatility of 4.06% compared to Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF (DFUV) at 3.11%. This indicates that DFAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFUV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFAT	DFUV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.06%	3.11%	+0.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.88%	8.47%	+2.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.75%	11.80%	+4.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.48%	16.24%	+5.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.48%	16.24%	+5.24%

DFAT vs. DFUV - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFAT has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than DFUV's 0.21% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFAT vs. DFUV - Dividend Comparison

DFAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, more than DFUV's 1.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFAT Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF	1.45%	1.55%	1.31%	1.34%	1.34%	1.13%
DFUV Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF	1.35%	1.55%	1.64%	1.72%	1.34%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFAT and DFUV in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, DFAT and DFUV 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, DFAT or DFUV?

DFAT has higher volatility (4.06%) compared to DFUV (3.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFAT dropped -26.12% vs DFUV's -17.60%.

Which ETF is better, DFAT or DFUV?

On 3-year performance, DFUV leads with 19.61% vs 16.49% for DFAT. On fees, DFUV is cheaper at 0.21% per year. On volatility, DFUV has been the lower-risk option at 3.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFAT or DFUV?

Over the 3-year period, DFUV has performed better with a 19.61% return vs 16.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFAT or DFUV?

DFUV is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for DFAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DFAT or DFUV?

DFAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 1.35% for DFUV.

What is the main difference between DFAT and DFUV?

DFAT is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while DFUV is Large Cap Value Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for DFAT and 0.21% for DFUV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFUV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.96 vs 1.81), 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.