MFUT vs. BLDG
MFUT (Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF) and BLDG (Cambria Global Real Estate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Cambria, while BLDG is a REIT fund actively managed by Cambria. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MFUT returned 37.88% vs 11.71% for BLDG. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MFUT charges 1.18%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BLDG.
Performance
MFUT vs. BLDG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFUT achieves a 21.83% return, which is significantly higher than BLDG's 6.95% return.
MFUT
- 1D
- 0.68%
- 1M
- 4.73%
- YTD
- 21.83%
- 6M
- 25.28%
- 1Y
- 37.88%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BLDG
- 1D
- 0.50%
- 1M
- 0.07%
- YTD
- 6.95%
- 6M
- 5.89%
- 1Y
- 11.71%
- 3Y*
- 9.07%
- 5Y*
- 2.55%
- 10Y*
- —
MFUT vs. BLDG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF | 21.83% | -1.83% | -16.68% |
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF | 6.95% | 4.26% | 13.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFUT and BLDG is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2024 | 0.14 |
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
MFUT vs. BLDG — Risk / Return Rank
MFUT
BLDG
MFUT vs. BLDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) 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.
| MFUT | BLDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.63 | 1.07 | +1.56 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.21 | 1.53 | +1.68 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.52 | 1.18 | +0.34 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.14 | 1.18 | +2.96 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.41 | 4.18 | +9.22 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MFUT | BLDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.63 | 1.07 | +1.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.17 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.01 | 0.46 | -0.47 |
Drawdowns
MFUT vs. BLDG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFUT drawdown since its inception was -29.28%, which is greater than BLDG's maximum drawdown of -27.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFUT and BLDG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFUT | BLDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.28% | -27.25% | -2.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.23% | -10.08% | +0.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -18.57% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -27.25% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.01% | -1.85% | +0.84% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.63% | -9.23% | -7.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.85% | 2.85% | 0.00% |
Volatility
MFUT vs. BLDG - Volatility Comparison
Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) and Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG) have volatilities of 3.55% and 3.62%, 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
| MFUT | BLDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.55% | 3.62% | -0.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.65% | 8.20% | +4.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.47% | 11.03% | +3.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.39% | 15.26% | -1.87% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.39% | 15.54% | -2.15% |
MFUT vs. BLDG - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFUT has a 1.18% expense ratio, which is higher than BLDG's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFUT vs. BLDG - Dividend Comparison
MFUT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BLDG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.67%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF | 5.67% | 7.46% | 7.97% | 4.99% | 3.99% | 10.40% | 0.59% |
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.33% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFUT and BLDG have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BLDG has higher volatility (3.62%) compared to MFUT (3.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFUT dropped -29.28% vs BLDG's -27.25%.
On 1-year performance, MFUT leads with 37.88% vs 11.71% for BLDG. On fees, BLDG is cheaper at 0.59% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MFUT has performed better with a 37.88% return vs 11.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BLDG is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 1.18% for MFUT.
BLDG has the higher dividend yield at 5.67%, compared with 0.00% for MFUT.
MFUT is categorized as Systematic Trend, while BLDG is REIT. Their fees differ too: 1.18% for MFUT and 0.59% for BLDG.
MFUT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 1.07), 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.
Find the right allocation for MFUT 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