Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BWET vs DFUS: how they differ
BWET is a commodity fund and DFUS an equity index fund, and over the year BWET returned more, +5129.6% against +17.5%.
Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF and Dimensional U.S. Equity Market ETF.
| BWET Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF | DFUS Dimensional U.S. Equity Market ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Breakwave | Dimensional |
| What it is | Tanker Shipping | U.S. Equity Market |
| Total return, 1 year | +5129.6% | +17.5% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5112.1 pts | 0.0 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.09% |
| Holdings | not filed | 2231 |
BWET in plain words
BWET is a commodity fund tracking the Tanker Shipping. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +5129.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100.
DFUS in plain words
DFUS is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2231 positions, with the top ten at 35.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, BWET or DFUS?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BWET returned +5129.6% and DFUS returned +17.5%, so BWET returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, BWET against DFUS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BWET-DFUS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources