DFUV vs. DFAT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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

Performance

DFUV vs. DFAT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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

DFUV

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

DFAT

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

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

DFUV vs. DFAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

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

DFUV vs. DFAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

DFUV vs. DFAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

DFUV vs. DFAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	DFUV	DFAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.96	1.81	+1.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.12	2.67	+1.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.32	+0.20
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.80	3.16	+2.64
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	21.03	10.13	+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.

DFUV vs. DFAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

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

Drawdowns

DFUV vs. DFAT - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

DFUV vs. DFAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional US Marketwide Value ETF (DFUV) is 3.11%, while Dimensional U.S. Targeted Value ETF (DFAT) has a volatility of 4.06%. This indicates that DFUV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DFAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

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

DFUV vs. DFAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

DFUV vs. DFAT - Dividend Comparison

DFUV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, less than DFAT's 1.45% 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 DFUV and DFAT in my portfolio?

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

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

Which ETF is better, DFUV or DFAT?

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, DFUV or DFAT?

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, DFUV or DFAT?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between DFUV and DFAT?

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

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.