PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GVAL vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GVAL vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GVAL achieves a 20.34% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 5.77% return. Over the past 10 years, GVAL has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 11.00%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 7.22% annualized return.


GVAL

1D
0.09%
1M
3.73%
6M
8.80%
YTD
20.34%
1Y
40.34%
3Y*
26.56%
5Y*
14.91%
10Y*
11.00%
ALL TIME*
6.96%

ACWV

1D
0.02%
1M
2.00%
6M
3.53%
YTD
5.77%
1Y
8.71%
3Y*
10.89%
5Y*
5.71%
10Y*
7.22%
ALL TIME*
8.75%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$13.15M$11.49M$12.64M
$3.55M$5.48M$6.45M

GVAL vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GVAL
Cambria Global Value ETF
20.34%55.87%2.59%13.30%-7.98%10.70%-8.51%17.24%-14.30%29.50%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
5.77%11.04%11.38%8.23%-10.36%13.97%3.04%21.04%-1.42%18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between GVAL and ACWV is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.44

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.53

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.57

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 12, 2014

0.62

The correlation between GVAL and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (1 year) to 0.62 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GVAL vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GVAL
ACWV

Financial Services

18.2%
13.5%

Basic Materials

8.4%
1.5%

Energy

7.9%
3.5%

Technology

6.8%
25.3%

Real Estate

6.7%
0.6%

Utilities

5.2%
7.5%

Industrials

4.8%
8.1%

Communication Services

4.3%
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

3.1%
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

1.9%
9.7%

Healthcare

-

13.8%

Financial Services

GVAL
18.2%
ACWV
13.5%

Basic Materials

GVAL
8.4%
ACWV
1.5%

Energy

GVAL
7.9%
ACWV
3.5%

Technology

GVAL
6.8%
ACWV
25.3%

Real Estate

GVAL
6.7%
ACWV
0.6%

Utilities

GVAL
5.2%
ACWV
7.5%

Industrials

GVAL
4.8%
ACWV
8.1%

Communication Services

GVAL
4.3%
ACWV
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

GVAL
3.1%
ACWV
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

GVAL
1.9%
ACWV
9.7%

Healthcare

GVAL

-

ACWV
13.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GVAL vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GVAL
GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
GVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank

ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GVAL vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.


GVALACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.79

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.20

+0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.52

1.37

+2.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.02

3.90

+9.12

GVAL vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.54, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVAL and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GVAL vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GVAL drawdown since its inception was -46.82%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GVAL and ACWV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GVALACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.82%

-28.82%

-18.00%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.50%

-6.37%

-5.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.72%

-7.56%

-8.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.83%

-18.14%

-12.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.82%

-28.82%

-18.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.34%

+0.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.72%

-3.10%

-10.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.11%

2.24%

+0.87%

Volatility

GVAL vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) has a higher volatility of 4.79% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.32%. This indicates that GVAL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GVALACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.79%

2.32%

+2.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.12%

6.41%

+7.71%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.98%

8.05%

+7.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.63%

10.30%

+8.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.00%

12.30%

+6.70%

GVAL vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GVAL has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

GVAL vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

GVAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.37%, more than ACWV's 1.90% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
1.90%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
GVAL
Cambria Global Value ETF
2.37%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


GVAL and ACWV have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GVAL has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to ACWV (2.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVAL dropped -46.82% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

On 10-year performance, GVAL leads with 11.00% vs 7.22% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GVAL has performed better with a 11.00% return vs 7.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for GVAL.

GVAL has the higher dividend yield at 2.37%, compared with 1.90% for ACWV.

They also come from different issuers: Cambria and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for GVAL and 0.20% for ACWV.

GVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs 1.09), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GVAL and ACWV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer