PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ICF vs. BLDG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ICF vs. BLDG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICF (iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF) and BLDG (Cambria Global Real Estate ETF) are both REIT funds. ICF is passively managed, while BLDG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICF returned 3.01%/yr vs 2.24%/yr for BLDG. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICF charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BLDG.

Performance

ICF vs. BLDG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF (ICF) and Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICF achieves a 12.19% return, which is significantly higher than BLDG's 5.95% return.

ICF

1D
0.17%
1M
-0.92%
YTD
12.19%
6M
11.56%
1Y
11.29%
3Y*
10.12%
5Y*
3.01%
10Y*
5.54%

BLDG

1D
-0.93%
1M
0.12%
YTD
5.95%
6M
5.25%
1Y
10.27%
3Y*
8.73%
5Y*
2.24%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ICF vs. BLDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
ICF
iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF		12.19%1.85%5.30%10.36%-26.12%44.17%10.11%
BLDG
Cambria Global Real Estate ETF		5.95%4.26%8.18%1.76%-14.66%22.47%15.37%

Correlation

The correlation between ICF and BLDG is 0.68, 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

0.68

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2020

0.79

The correlation between ICF and BLDG shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.79 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICF vs. BLDG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICF
BLDG

Real Estate

100.0%
98.6%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

1.4%

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Real Estate

ICF
100.0%
BLDG
98.6%

Basic Materials

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Communication Services

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Consumer Cyclical

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Consumer Defensive

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Energy

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Financial Services

ICF

-

BLDG
1.4%

Healthcare

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Industrials

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Technology

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Utilities

ICF

-

BLDG

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF

Cambria Global Real Estate ETF

Often compared with ICF:
ICF vs. VNQICF vs. USRTICF vs. IYRICF vs. FRELICF vs. ICFIICF vs. SDIVICF vs. XLRE
Often compared with BLDG:
BLDG vs. VNQBLDG vs. AVREBLDG vs. VNQIBLDG vs. REETBLDG vs. SRETBLDG vs. DFGRBLDG vs. RWX

Return for Risk

ICF vs. BLDG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ICF
ICF Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
ICF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICF Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICF Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
ICF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICF Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
BLDG
BLDG Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
BLDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BLDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
BLDG Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
BLDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
BLDG Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ICF vs. BLDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF (ICF) and Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG). 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.

ICFBLDGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.84
0.93

-0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.20
1.35

-0.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.16

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.38

1.02

+0.36

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.92

3.60

+0.32

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICF vs. BLDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICF Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is comparable to the BLDG Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICF and BLDG, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

ICFBLDGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

0.93

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.16

0.15

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.27

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.45

-0.14

Drawdowns

ICF vs. BLDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICF drawdown since its inception was -76.74%, which is greater than BLDG's maximum drawdown of -27.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICF and BLDG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICFBLDGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-76.74%

-27.25%

-49.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.20%

-10.08%

+1.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.25%

-18.57%

+1.32%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.74%

-27.25%

-7.49%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.22%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.67%

-2.76%

+0.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.18%

-9.23%

-4.95%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.88%

2.86%

+0.02%

Volatility

ICF vs. BLDG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF (ICF) and Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG) have volatilities of 3.71% and 3.60%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ICFBLDGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.71%

3.60%

+0.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.85%

8.23%

+1.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.57%

11.07%

+2.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.91%

15.26%

+3.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.58%

15.54%

+5.04%

ICF vs. BLDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICF has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is lower than BLDG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICF vs. BLDG - Dividend Comparison

ICF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, less than BLDG's 5.72% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BLDG
Cambria Global Real Estate ETF		5.72%7.46%7.97%4.99%3.99%10.40%0.59%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ICF
iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF		2.48%2.88%2.66%2.76%2.64%1.82%2.38%2.55%3.20%3.10%4.21%3.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

ICF and BLDG have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ICF has higher volatility (3.71%) compared to BLDG (3.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICF dropped -76.74% vs BLDG's -27.25%.

On 5-year performance, ICF leads with 3.01% vs 2.24% for BLDG. On fees, ICF is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, BLDG has been the lower-risk option at 3.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, ICF has performed better with a 3.01% return vs 2.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ICF is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BLDG.

BLDG has the higher dividend yield at 5.72%, compared with 2.48% for ICF.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for ICF and 0.59% for BLDG.

BLDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.93 vs 0.84), 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 ICF and BLDG

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