GVAL vs. DFIV

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GVAL (Cambria Global Value ETF) and DFIV (Dimensional International Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GVAL is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Cambria, while DFIV is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GVAL returned 28.26%/yr vs 23.86%/yr for DFIV. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GVAL charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for DFIV.

Performance

GVAL vs. DFIV - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GVAL achieves a 19.68% return, which is significantly higher than DFIV's 11.48% return.

GVAL

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 6.30%
• YTD: 19.68%
• 6M: 19.91%
• 1Y: 46.46%
• 3Y*: 28.26%
• 5Y*: 14.84%
• 10Y*: 12.03%

DFIV

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: -0.05%
• YTD: 11.48%
• 6M: 11.84%
• 1Y: 35.09%
• 3Y*: 23.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GVAL vs. DFIV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	19.68%	55.87%	2.59%	13.30%	-7.98%	-2.74%
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	11.48%	45.36%	7.26%	17.75%	-3.70%	0.50%

Correlation

The correlation between GVAL and DFIV is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2021	0.81

The correlation between GVAL and DFIV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

GVAL vs. DFIV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GVAL	DFIV
Financial Services	16.9%	32.4%
Technology	9.4%	3.2%
Basic Materials	7.7%	11.4%
Energy	6.8%	15.3%
Real Estate	6.2%	1.7%
Communication Services	4.3%	4.3%
Utilities	3.7%	2.2%
Industrials	3.6%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	4.9%
Healthcare	-	4.9%

Return for Risk

GVAL vs. DFIV — Risk / Return Rank

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

GVAL

GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 86
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 89
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
GVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 81

DFIV

DFIV Risk / Return Rank: 78
DFIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DFIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
DFIV Omega Ratio Rank: 80
DFIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
DFIV Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

GVAL vs. DFIV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) and Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV). 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.

	GVAL	DFIV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	2.51	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.99	3.42	+0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.45	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.06	3.65	+0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.49	14.00	+1.48

GVAL vs. DFIV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVAL Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is comparable to the DFIV Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVAL and DFIV, 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

GVAL vs. DFIV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GVAL drawdown since its inception was -46.82%, which is greater than DFIV's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GVAL and DFIV.

Drawdown Indicators

	GVAL	DFIV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.82%	-25.42%	-21.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.50%	-9.66%	-1.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.72%	-14.72%	-1.00%
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	-0.41%	-1.07%	+0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.83%	-4.45%	-9.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.01%	2.51%	+0.50%

Volatility

GVAL vs. DFIV - Volatility Comparison

Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) has a higher volatility of 6.03% compared to Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) at 4.14%. This indicates that GVAL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFIV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GVAL	DFIV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.03%	4.14%	+1.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.65%	11.44%	+2.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.45%	14.06%	+1.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.58%	16.63%	+1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.19%	16.63%	+2.56%

GVAL vs. DFIV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GVAL has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is higher than DFIV's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

GVAL vs. DFIV - Dividend Comparison

GVAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.39%, less than DFIV's 2.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	2.55%	2.92%	3.88%	3.93%	3.84%	2.30%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	2.39%	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 GVAL and DFIV in my portfolio?

GVAL and DFIV have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GVAL or DFIV?

GVAL has higher volatility (6.03%) compared to DFIV (4.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVAL dropped -46.82% vs DFIV's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, GVAL or DFIV?

On 3-year performance, GVAL leads with 28.26% vs 23.86% for DFIV. On fees, DFIV is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, DFIV has been the lower-risk option at 4.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GVAL or DFIV?

Over the 3-year period, GVAL has performed better with a 28.26% return vs 23.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GVAL or DFIV?

DFIV is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.64% for GVAL.

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

DFIV has the higher dividend yield at 2.55%, compared with 2.39% for GVAL.

What is the main difference between GVAL and DFIV?

GVAL is categorized as Global Equities, while DFIV is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: Cambria and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for GVAL and 0.27% for DFIV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 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.