DFAT vs. RZV

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

DFAT (Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF) and RZV (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. DFAT is actively managed, while RZV is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DFAT returned 10.36%/yr vs 9.95%/yr for RZV. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DFAT charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RZV.

Performance

DFAT vs. RZV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFAT achieves a 16.59% return, which is significantly lower than RZV's 22.56% return.

DFAT

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: 3.34%
• YTD: 16.59%
• 6M: 14.65%
• 1Y: 30.94%
• 3Y*: 17.50%
• 5Y*: 10.36%
• 10Y*: —

RZV

• 1D: 1.27%
• 1M: 6.80%
• YTD: 22.56%
• 6M: 21.05%
• 1Y: 41.93%
• 3Y*: 19.27%
• 5Y*: 9.95%
• 10Y*: 11.29%

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

DFAT vs. RZV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFAT Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF	16.59%	8.73%	7.80%	20.86%	-6.23%	3.66%
RZV Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF	22.56%	8.65%	5.06%	22.97%	-6.80%	-1.64%

Correlation

The correlation between DFAT and RZV is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2021	0.94

The correlation between DFAT and RZV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFAT vs. RZV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFAT	RZV
Financial Services	27.9%	7.4%
Industrials	16.2%	15.9%
Consumer Cyclical	14.9%	25.9%
Energy	10.5%	8.8%
Technology	9.4%	10.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	7.6%
Healthcare	6.4%	8.4%
Basic Materials	4.8%	6.2%
Communication Services	1.8%	4.0%
Real Estate	0.8%	4.8%
Utilities	0.4%	0.4%

Return for Risk

DFAT vs. RZV — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFAT

DFAT Risk / Return Rank: 65
DFAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
DFAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
DFAT Omega Ratio Rank: 61
DFAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
DFAT Martin Ratio Rank: 64

RZV

RZV Risk / Return Rank: 69
RZV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
RZV Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
RZV Omega Ratio Rank: 63
RZV Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
RZV Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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. RZV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV). 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.

	DFAT	RZV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.03	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	2.88	-0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.34	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	3.35	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.44	10.89	-0.45

DFAT vs. RZV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the RZV Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFAT and RZV, 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

DFAT vs. RZV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFAT drawdown since its inception was -26.12%, smaller than the maximum RZV drawdown of -77.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFAT and RZV.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFAT	RZV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.12%	-77.11%	+50.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.55%	-12.56%	+3.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.12%	-29.81%	+3.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.12%	-29.81%	+3.69%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-60.42%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.57%	-0.83%	+0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.23%	-13.57%	+7.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.97%	3.86%	-0.89%

Volatility

DFAT vs. RZV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) is 3.93%, while Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV) has a volatility of 5.22%. This indicates that DFAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RZV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFAT	RZV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.93%	5.22%	-1.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.94%	14.12%	-3.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.77%	20.76%	-3.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.39%	24.32%	-2.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.42%	26.99%	-5.57%

DFAT vs. RZV - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFAT has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than RZV's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFAT vs. RZV - Dividend Comparison

DFAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, less than RZV's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DFAT Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF	1.39%	1.55%	1.31%	1.34%	1.34%	1.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RZV Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF	1.44%	1.59%	1.14%	1.13%	1.43%	0.86%	0.63%	1.03%	2.03%	1.02%	0.46%	1.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFAT and RZV in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, DFAT and RZV 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 RZV?

RZV has higher volatility (5.22%) compared to DFAT (3.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFAT dropped -26.12% vs RZV's -77.11%.

Which ETF is better, DFAT or RZV?

On 5-year performance, DFAT leads with 10.36% vs 9.95% for RZV. On fees, DFAT is cheaper at 0.28% per year. On volatility, DFAT has been the lower-risk option at 3.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFAT or RZV?

Over the 5-year period, DFAT has performed better with a 10.36% return vs 9.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFAT or RZV?

DFAT is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RZV.

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

RZV has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 1.39% for DFAT.

What is the main difference between DFAT and RZV?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for DFAT and 0.35% for RZV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RZV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.85), 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.