DFAS vs PRFZ
These two ETFs meet the same FF6 US comparison criteria: US-listed equity ETFs, the same USD model basis, at least one material non-market factor, and 100% overlap in statistically significant material factor exposure.
The score combines exposure-level distance, factor-vector shape, market-beta closeness, and a small backtested relative-Sharpe term.
Quick Read
- DFAS has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (1.158 vs 0.963).
- DFAS has the lower published fee (0.26% vs 0.34%).
- DFAS is cheaper on dividend valuation (106 vs 153, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
- DFAS has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.980 vs 0.974).
These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.
PRFZ
Factor Exposure Match
Blue bars compare raw factor beta magnitude. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength. Dim bars indicate the t-stat is below 1.96.
Why This Pair Matches
This comparison focuses on measured factor exposure. It does not compare holdings methodology, turnover, tax handling, or issuer process. Backtested relative Sharpe is a secondary signal rather than a stand-alone forecast. See methodology.
Get one monthly email when the US leaders table refreshes, plus methodology and comparison-page updates.