FWD vs. GVAL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) and GVAL (Cambria Global Value ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FWD returned 37.74%/yr vs 27.44%/yr for GVAL. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FWD charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for GVAL.

Performance

FWD vs. GVAL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FWD achieves a 35.59% return, which is significantly higher than GVAL's 17.40% return.

FWD

• 1D: -4.88%
• 1M: 3.45%
• YTD: 35.59%
• 6M: 33.13%
• 1Y: 66.65%
• 3Y*: 37.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GVAL

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 4.28%
• YTD: 17.40%
• 6M: 17.33%
• 1Y: 43.62%
• 3Y*: 27.44%
• 5Y*: 14.14%
• 10Y*: 11.81%

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

FWD vs. GVAL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	35.59%	32.00%	29.23%	23.48%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	17.40%	55.87%	2.59%	13.53%

Correlation

The correlation between FWD and GVAL is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2023	0.54

The correlation between FWD and GVAL shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (all time) to 0.66 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FWD vs. GVAL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWD	GVAL
Technology	59.8%	9.4%
Industrials	19.3%	3.6%
Healthcare	6.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	2.7%
Communication Services	3.4%	4.3%
Energy	2.6%	6.8%
Basic Materials	1.9%	7.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	1.8%
Real Estate	0.7%	6.2%
Financial Services	0.5%	16.9%
Utilities	0.3%	3.7%

Return for Risk

FWD vs. GVAL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 81
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 87

GVAL

GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 84
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 86
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
GVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

FWD vs. GVAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL). 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.

	FWD	GVAL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	2.82	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	3.72	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.50	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.14	3.81	+1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.45	14.52	+2.93

FWD vs. GVAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWD Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the GVAL Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWD and GVAL, 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

FWD vs. GVAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWD drawdown since its inception was -29.02%, smaller than the maximum GVAL drawdown of -46.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWD and GVAL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWD	GVAL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.02%	-46.82%	+17.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.03%	-11.50%	-1.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	-15.72%	-13.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.83%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.88%	-2.31%	-2.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.06%	-13.82%	+9.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.83%	3.01%	+0.82%

Volatility

FWD vs. GVAL - Volatility Comparison

AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a higher volatility of 12.86% compared to Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) at 6.37%. This indicates that FWD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GVAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWD	GVAL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.86%	6.37%	+6.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.86%	13.81%	+8.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.73%	15.55%	+11.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.39%	18.60%	+6.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.39%	19.00%	+6.39%

FWD vs. GVAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWD has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than GVAL's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

FWD vs. GVAL - Dividend Comparison

FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, less than GVAL's 2.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	2.43%	2.93%	4.75%	6.12%	5.05%	2.97%	1.90%	2.84%	4.65%	2.00%	2.54%	2.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FWD and GVAL in my portfolio?

FWD and GVAL have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FWD or GVAL?

FWD has higher volatility (12.86%) compared to GVAL (6.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FWD dropped -29.02% vs GVAL's -46.82%.

Which ETF is better, FWD or GVAL?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 37.74% vs 27.44% for GVAL. On fees, GVAL is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, GVAL has been the lower-risk option at 6.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FWD or GVAL?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 37.74% return vs 27.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWD or GVAL?

GVAL is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FWD or GVAL?

GVAL has the higher dividend yield at 2.43%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between FWD and GVAL?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for FWD and 0.64% for GVAL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs 2.51), 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.