GVAL vs. FWD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GVAL (Cambria Global Value ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GVAL returned 26.42%/yr vs 39.48%/yr for FWD. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GVAL charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

GVAL vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GVAL achieves a 14.37% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 40.11% return.

GVAL

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: 14.37%
• 6M: 15.35%
• 1Y: 39.69%
• 3Y*: 26.42%
• 5Y*: 13.14%
• 10Y*: 10.76%

FWD

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 14.15%
• YTD: 40.11%
• 6M: 39.78%
• 1Y: 75.95%
• 3Y*: 39.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GVAL vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	14.37%	55.87%	2.59%	13.70%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	40.11%	32.00%	29.23%	25.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GVAL and FWD is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2023	0.53

The correlation between GVAL and FWD shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (all time) to 0.64 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GVAL vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GVAL	FWD
Financial Services	16.4%	0.5%
Basic Materials	8.2%	1.8%
Energy	7.8%	2.6%
Real Estate	7.0%	0.7%
Technology	6.4%	52.6%
Communication Services	4.6%	2.6%
Utilities	4.1%	1.0%
Industrials	3.6%	17.7%
Consumer Cyclical	2.6%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	0.8%
Healthcare	-	6.6%

Return for Risk

GVAL vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GVAL

GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 77
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
GVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 71

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	GVAL	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.75	3.16	-0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.64	3.78	-0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.50	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	5.86	-2.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.33	20.83	-7.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GVAL vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.75, which is comparable to the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 3.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVAL and FWD, 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

	GVAL	FWD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.75	3.16	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.56	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	1.67	-1.32

Drawdowns

GVAL vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	GVAL	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.82%	-29.02%	-17.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.50%	-13.03%	+1.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.72%	-29.02%	+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	-1.24%	-0.27%	-0.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.88%	-4.06%	-9.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.99%	3.66%	-0.67%

Volatility

GVAL vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) is 5.10%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 7.77%. This indicates that GVAL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FWD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GVAL	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.10%	7.77%	-2.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.72%	18.96%	-6.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.52%	24.15%	-9.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	24.72%	-6.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.21%	24.72%	-5.51%

GVAL vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GVAL vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

GVAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.83%, more than FWD's 0.08% 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	2.83%	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 FWD in my portfolio?

GVAL and FWD have a correlation of 0.64, 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 FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (7.77%) compared to GVAL (5.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVAL dropped -46.82% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, GVAL or FWD?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 39.48% vs 26.42% for GVAL. On fees, GVAL is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, GVAL has been the lower-risk option at 5.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GVAL or FWD?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 39.48% return vs 26.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GVAL or FWD?

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

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

GVAL has the higher dividend yield at 2.83%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between GVAL and FWD?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.16 vs 2.75), 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.