ABFL vs DFAU
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF vs Dimensional US Core Equity Market ETF
Which is better, ABFL or DFAU?
DFAU has been ahead.
DFAU has a lower expense ratio. DFAU led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. DFAU is less concentrated, with 34.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ABFL | DFAU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.12%Best |
| AUM | $473M | $13.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.60% | 0.90% |
| Holdings | 58 | 2,124 |
| YTD Return | +11.62% | +13.34%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.48% | +17.35%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.92% | +21.60%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.39% | +12.53%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.5%Best | 14.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -22.0%Best | -23.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,393 | $18,044Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.0% | 34.0%Best |
| Fund Family | FCF Advisors | Dimensional |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2016 | Nov 17, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 18, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.9 years).
ABFL vs DFAU growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 5.9 years both funds cover.
ABFL vs DFAU Performance
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is an ETF from FCF Advisors and Dimensional US Core Equity Market ETF (DFAU) is an ETF from Dimensional. Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% while DFAU returned +17.35%. Year to date, ABFL is up 11.62% versus a gain of 13.34% for DFAU.
Over three years, ABFL compounded at +15.92% per year against +21.60% for DFAU; over five years the annualized figures are +10.39% and +12.53% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, DFAU has the edge at +15.04% annualized vs +13.46%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DFAU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.9% compared with 14.5% for ABFL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -22.0% for ABFL and -23.6% for DFAU. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ABFL charges 0.49% per year while DFAU charges 0.12%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $12 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ABFL currently yields 0.60% against 0.90% for DFAU.
Holdings Overlap
95.5% of ABFL's money is in holdings DFAU also owns. 23.0% of DFAU's money is in holdings ABFL also owns.
Most of ABFL is already inside DFAU. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
51 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 2,205 in DFAU, against full books of 58 and 2,124.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,109 positions for DFAU that do not appear in our book for ABFL (74.4% of the fund), and 2 for ABFL that do not appear in DFAU (2.9%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ABFL | Weight in DFAU | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.55% | 6.81% | 1.26% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.30% | 6.99% | 1.69% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 4.03% | 0.22% | 3.81% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.99% | 1.18% | 1.81% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.98% | 0.54% | 2.44% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 3.00% | 0.42% | 2.58% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.57% | 0.62% | 1.95% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.90% | 0.26% | 2.64% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 2.32% | 0.75% | 1.57% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 2.70% | 0.31% | 2.39% |
95.5% of ABFL is already inside DFAU.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ABFL or DFAU?
ABFL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while DFAU charges 0.12%. DFAU is the cheaper option, by $37 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ABFL or DFAU?
Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% vs +17.35% for DFAU, so DFAU leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), ABFL annualized +13.46% vs +15.04% for DFAU. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ABFL or DFAU?
DFAU has been the more volatile fund at 14.9% annualized versus 14.5% for ABFL. Worst drawdown: ABFL -22.0% vs DFAU -23.6%.
Should I hold both ABFL and DFAU?
ABFL and DFAU have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ABFL and DFAU?
95.5% of ABFL's money is in holdings DFAU also owns. 23.0% of DFAU's is in holdings ABFL also owns. They hold 51 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 2,205 in DFAU.
Which pays a higher dividend, ABFL or DFAU?
ABFL yields 0.60% while DFAU yields 0.90%, so DFAU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is DFAU better than ABFL?
DFAU has a lower expense ratio. DFAU led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. DFAU is less concentrated, with 34.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.