TAIL vs. BLDG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TAIL (Cambria Tail Risk ETF) and BLDG (Cambria Global Real Estate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TAIL is a Equity Hedged fund actively managed by Cambria, while BLDG is a REIT fund actively managed by Cambria. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, TAIL returned -9.07%/yr vs 3.43%/yr for BLDG. Their -0.33 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

TAIL vs. BLDG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAIL achieves a -8.13% return, which is significantly lower than BLDG's 13.98% return.

TAIL

• 1D: -0.57%
• 1M: -1.69%
• 6M: -7.65%
• YTD: -8.13%
• 1Y: -11.00%
• 3Y*: -4.90%
• 5Y*: -9.07%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -7.28%

BLDG

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.28%
• 6M: 9.65%
• YTD: 13.98%
• 1Y: 17.84%
• 3Y*: 9.83%
• 5Y*: 3.43%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.09%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	$91.83K	$83.90K	$581.35K
TAIL Cambria Tail Risk ETF	$1.12M	$1.66M	$2.24M

TAIL vs. BLDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TAIL Cambria Tail Risk ETF	-8.13%	5.48%	-9.62%	-13.29%	-13.13%	-12.81%	-6.02%
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	13.98%	4.26%	8.18%	1.76%	-14.66%	22.47%	15.25%

Correlation

The correlation between TAIL and BLDG is -0.05, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.05
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.16
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	-0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2020	-0.33

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between TAIL and BLDG has weakened: their correlation has moved from -0.33 to -0.05, meaning they move in opposite directions less often than they have historically.

Return for Risk

TAIL vs. BLDG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TAIL

TAIL Risk / Return Rank: 1
TAIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
TAIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
TAIL Omega Ratio Rank: 2
TAIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
TAIL Martin Ratio Rank: 0

BLDG

BLDG Risk / Return Rank: 57
BLDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
BLDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
BLDG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
BLDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
BLDG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TAIL vs. BLDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Tail Risk ETF (TAIL) 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.

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.

	TAIL	BLDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.09	1.50	-2.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.55	2.09	-3.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.82	1.26	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.74	1.71	-2.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.52	6.03	-7.55

TAIL vs. BLDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAIL Sharpe Ratio is -1.09, which is lower than the BLDG Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAIL 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.

Drawdowns

TAIL vs. BLDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAIL drawdown since its inception was -52.57%, which is greater than BLDG's maximum drawdown of -27.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAIL and BLDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAIL	BLDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.57%	-27.25%	-25.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.68%	-10.08%	-2.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.20%	-18.57%	-3.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.03%	-27.25%	-10.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-52.57%	-1.92%	-50.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.50%	-8.99%	-20.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.16%	2.85%	+3.31%

Volatility

TAIL vs. BLDG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Tail Risk ETF (TAIL) is 1.80%, while Cambria Global Real Estate ETF (BLDG) has a volatility of 3.77%. This indicates that TAIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BLDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAIL	BLDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.80%	3.77%	-1.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.72%	9.59%	-2.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.59%	11.52%	-2.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.88%	15.23%	-0.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.84%	15.50%	-0.66%

TAIL vs. BLDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both TAIL and BLDG have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

TAIL vs. BLDG - Dividend Comparison

TAIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, less than BLDG's 5.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BLDG Cambria Global Real Estate ETF	5.15%	7.46%	7.97%	4.99%	3.99%	10.40%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TAIL Cambria Tail Risk ETF	2.99%	2.88%	3.48%	3.74%	1.50%	0.49%	0.36%	1.58%	1.52%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TAIL and BLDG in my portfolio?

TAIL 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.

Which is riskier, TAIL or BLDG?

BLDG has higher volatility (3.77%) compared to TAIL (1.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAIL dropped -52.57% vs BLDG's -27.25%.

Which ETF is better, TAIL or BLDG?

On 5-year performance, BLDG leads with 3.43% vs -9.07% for TAIL. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. On volatility, TAIL has been the lower-risk option at 1.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAIL or BLDG?

Over the 5-year period, BLDG has performed better with a 3.43% return vs -9.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAIL or BLDG?

TAIL and BLDG have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

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

BLDG has the higher dividend yield at 5.15%, compared with 2.99% for TAIL.

What is the main difference between TAIL and BLDG?

TAIL is categorized as Equity Hedged, while BLDG is REIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs -1.09), 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.