MOTG vs. GVAL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

MOTG (VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF) and GVAL (Cambria Global Value ETF) are both Global Equities funds. MOTG is passively managed, while GVAL is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MOTG returned 5.99%/yr vs 13.95%/yr for GVAL. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MOTG charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for GVAL.

Performance

MOTG vs. GVAL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MOTG achieves a -2.75% return, which is significantly lower than GVAL's 15.95% return.

MOTG

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -2.97%
• YTD: -2.75%
• 6M: -3.04%
• 1Y: 5.87%
• 3Y*: 12.00%
• 5Y*: 5.99%
• 10Y*: —

GVAL

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: 2.99%
• YTD: 15.95%
• 6M: 15.40%
• 1Y: 39.29%
• 3Y*: 26.91%
• 5Y*: 13.95%
• 10Y*: 11.68%

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

MOTG vs. GVAL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MOTG VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF	-2.75%	26.06%	9.31%	11.00%	-11.34%	14.68%	16.06%	30.43%	-3.89%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	15.95%	55.87%	2.59%	13.30%	-7.98%	10.70%	-8.51%	17.24%	-3.47%

Correlation

The correlation between MOTG and GVAL is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2018	0.71

The correlation between MOTG and GVAL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

MOTG vs. GVAL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MOTG	GVAL
Industrials	26.3%	3.6%
Technology	19.3%	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	16.8%	1.8%
Healthcare	14.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	2.7%
Communication Services	6.6%	4.3%
Financial Services	6.3%	16.9%
Basic Materials	1.1%	7.7%
Energy	-	6.8%
Real Estate	-	6.2%
Utilities	-	3.7%

Return for Risk

MOTG vs. GVAL — Risk / Return Rank

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

MOTG

MOTG Risk / Return Rank: 15
MOTG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
MOTG Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
MOTG Omega Ratio Rank: 14
MOTG Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
MOTG Martin Ratio Rank: 16

GVAL

GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 81
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 84
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
GVAL 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.

MOTG vs. GVAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF (MOTG) and Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL). 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.

	MOTG	GVAL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	2.54	-2.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.69	3.39	-2.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.45	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.47	3.43	-2.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.45	13.04	-11.59

MOTG vs. GVAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOTG Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the GVAL Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOTG and GVAL, 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

MOTG vs. GVAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOTG drawdown since its inception was -31.82%, smaller than the maximum GVAL drawdown of -46.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOTG and GVAL.

Drawdown Indicators

	MOTG	GVAL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.82%	-46.82%	+15.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.56%	-11.50%	-1.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.31%	-15.72%	+0.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.29%	-30.83%	+6.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.08%	-3.51%	-4.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.96%	-13.82%	+8.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.06%	3.02%	+1.04%

Volatility

MOTG vs. GVAL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF (MOTG) is 3.88%, while Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) has a volatility of 6.52%. This indicates that MOTG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GVAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MOTG	GVAL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.88%	6.52%	-2.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.60%	13.85%	-2.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.13%	15.62%	-1.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.90%	18.60%	-2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.83%	19.01%	-1.18%

MOTG vs. GVAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

MOTG has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than GVAL's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

MOTG vs. GVAL - Dividend Comparison

MOTG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 18.25%, more than GVAL's 2.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	2.46%	2.93%	4.75%	6.12%	5.05%	2.97%	1.90%	2.84%	4.65%	2.00%	2.54%	2.11%
MOTG VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF	18.25%	17.75%	5.60%	1.86%	3.64%	5.88%	2.96%	3.91%	0.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MOTG and GVAL in my portfolio?

MOTG and GVAL have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MOTG or GVAL?

GVAL has higher volatility (6.52%) compared to MOTG (3.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOTG dropped -31.82% vs GVAL's -46.82%.

Which ETF is better, MOTG or GVAL?

On 5-year performance, GVAL leads with 13.95% vs 5.99% for MOTG. On fees, MOTG is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, MOTG has been the lower-risk option at 3.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MOTG or GVAL?

Over the 5-year period, GVAL has performed better with a 13.95% return vs 5.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MOTG or GVAL?

MOTG is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.64% for GVAL.

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

MOTG has the higher dividend yield at 18.25%, compared with 2.46% for GVAL.

What is the main difference between MOTG and GVAL?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for MOTG and 0.64% for GVAL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs 0.42), 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.