RINC vs. BLDG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RINC (AXS Real Estate Income ETF) and BLDG (Cambria Global Real Estate ETF) are both REIT funds. RINC is passively managed, while BLDG is actively managed. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RINC charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BLDG.

Performance

RINC vs. BLDG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AXS Real Estate Income ETF (RINC) and Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

RINC

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

RINC vs. BLDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RINC AXS Real Estate Income ETF	0.00%	7.75%	-5.74%	1.71%
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	5.95%	4.26%	8.18%	5.53%

Correlation

The correlation between RINC and BLDG is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2023	0.59

Over the past year, the correlation between RINC and BLDG has dropped to 0.34 - well below their long-term average of 0.59, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RINC vs. BLDG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RINC	BLDG
Real Estate	100.0%	98.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	1.4%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RINC vs. BLDG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLDG

BLDG Risk / Return Rank: 25
BLDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
BLDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
BLDG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
BLDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
BLDG Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

RINC vs. BLDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AXS Real Estate Income ETF (RINC) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RINC	BLDG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	0.93	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	—	0.45	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	RINC	BLDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-27.25%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-10.08%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.57%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-2.76%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-9.23%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.86%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	RINC	BLDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.60%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.23%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	11.07%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	15.26%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	15.54%	—

RINC vs. BLDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RINC has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than BLDG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

RINC vs. BLDG - Dividend Comparison

RINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.16%, less than BLDG's 5.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	5.72%	7.46%	7.97%	4.99%	3.99%	10.40%	0.59%
RINC AXS Real Estate Income ETF	2.16%	6.04%	10.85%	3.88%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RINC and BLDG in my portfolio?

RINC and BLDG have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RINC or BLDG?

On fees, BLDG is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RINC or BLDG?

BLDG is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for RINC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RINC or BLDG?

BLDG has the higher dividend yield at 5.72%, compared with 2.16% for RINC.

What is the main difference between RINC and BLDG?

They also come from different issuers: AXS and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for RINC and 0.59% for BLDG.