DFAC vs NBDS
Dimensional US Core Equity 2 ETF vs Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF
Which is better, DFAC or NBDS?
Each has led over a different period.
DFAC has a lower expense ratio. DFAC led over 1Y and the full window, NBDS over 3Y. DFAC is less concentrated, with 26.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.6%.
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 | DFAC | NBDS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.17%Best | 0.40% |
| AUM | $48.6B | $177M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.89% | 0.33% |
| Holdings | 2,554 | 32 |
| YTD Return | +14.69% | +16.17%Best |
| 1Y Return | +19.83%Best | +12.66% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.42% | +23.87%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.31% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6%Best | 23.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.0%Best | -29.8% |
| $10,000 over 4.5 years | $17,554Best | $17,112 |
| Top 10 Weight | 26.8%Best | 46.6% |
| Fund Family | Dimensional | Neuberger Berman |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 4, 2007 | Apr 6, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 7, 2022 to Oct 12, 2026 (4.5 years).
DFAC vs NBDS 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 4.5 years both funds cover.
DFAC vs NBDS Performance
Dimensional US Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) is an ETF from Dimensional and Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) is an ETF from Neuberger Berman. Over the past year DFAC returned +19.83% while NBDS returned +12.66%. Year to date, DFAC is up 14.69% versus a gain of 16.17% for NBDS.
Over three years, DFAC compounded at +21.42% per year against +23.87% for NBDS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NBDS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.4% compared with 15.6% for DFAC. 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 -20.0% for DFAC and -29.8% for NBDS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
DFAC charges 0.17% per year while NBDS charges 0.40%. On a $10,000 position that is $17 vs $40 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DFAC currently yields 0.89% against 0.33% for NBDS.
Holdings Overlap
11.6% of DFAC's money is in holdings NBDS also owns. 76.3% of NBDS's money is in holdings DFAC also owns.
Most of NBDS is already inside DFAC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
24 positions in common, counted across the 2,510 positions we hold weights for in DFAC and 32 in NBDS, against full books of 2,554 and 32.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 4 positions for NBDS that do not appear in our book for DFAC (7.3% of the fund), and 1,427 for DFAC that do not appear in NBDS (85.4%).
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 DFAC | Weight in NBDS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.53% | 7.46% | 1.93% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.95% | 2.69% | 0.26% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.18% | 5.41% | 5.23% |
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 0.05% | 4.80% | 4.75% |
| PTGXProtagonist Therapeutics Inc | 0.00% | 4.53% | 4.53% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.32% | 2.82% | 1.50% |
| CEGConstellation Energy Corporation Com | 0.04% | 4.05% | 4.01% |
| HOODRobinhood Markets Inc - A | 0.11% | 3.92% | 3.81% |
| GKOSGlaukos Corp. | 0.00% | 3.88% | 3.88% |
| MPWRMonolithic Power Systems Inc | 0.05% | 3.57% | 3.52% |
76.3% of NBDS is already inside DFAC.
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, DFAC or NBDS?
DFAC has an expense ratio of 0.17% while NBDS charges 0.40%. DFAC is the cheaper option, by $23 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, DFAC or NBDS?
Over the past year DFAC returned +19.83% vs +12.66% for NBDS, so DFAC leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, DFAC or NBDS?
NBDS has been the more volatile fund at 23.4% annualized versus 15.6% for DFAC. Worst drawdown: DFAC -20.0% vs NBDS -29.8%.
Should I hold both DFAC and NBDS?
DFAC and NBDS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between DFAC and NBDS?
76.3% of NBDS's money is in holdings DFAC also owns. 76.3% of NBDS's is in holdings DFAC also owns. They hold 24 positions in common, counted across the 2,510 positions we hold weights for in DFAC and 32 in NBDS.
Which pays a higher dividend, DFAC or NBDS?
DFAC yields 0.89% while NBDS yields 0.33%, so DFAC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NBDS better than DFAC?
DFAC has a lower expense ratio. DFAC led over 1Y and the full window, NBDS over 3Y. DFAC is less concentrated, with 26.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.