ETF de bienes raíces activos versus pasivos: Cómo superar los compromisos entre costo y rendimiento para lograr un éxito a largo plazo

Investors seeking exposure to real estate markets face a critical decision: whether to allocate capital to high-quality active real estate ETFs or low-cost broad-market alternatives. This choice hinges on balancing short-term performance, expense ratios, and long-term alignment with investment goals. Recent data and historical studies reveal a nuanced landscape where active strategies can outperform in volatile markets, while passive options offer cost advantages that compound over decades.

Recent Performance and Expense Ratios: Active ETFs Shine in Dynamic Markets

Active real estate ETFs have demonstrated superior returns in recent years, particularly in 2023–2026, when shifting interest rates and commercial real estate uncertainty favored nimble strategies. For instance, the WisdomTree New Economy Real Estate Fund (WTRE) delivered a 28.02% one-year return in 2023 and surged 34.6% year-to-date in Q4 2025, outpacing passive benchmarks like the SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF (RWR), which returned -0.63% over the same trailing 12 months according to US News. This outperformance is attributed to active managers' focus on sectors such as data centers and logistics, which thrive in a digital economy as ETF Trends reports.

However, these gains come at a cost. Active ETFs like the VanEck Mortgage REIT Income ETF (MORT, 0.43% expense ratio) and INDS (0.55%) charge higher fees than passive counterparts like RWR (0.25%) and the JPMorgan BetaBuilders MSCI US REIT ETF (BBRE, 0.11%) according to ETF Trends analysis. While active strategies may justify higher fees in high-dispersion markets, investors must weigh these costs against potential returns.

Long-Term Performance: Passive Strategies Excel in Consistency

Over extended periods, passive real estate ETFs have shown resilience in delivering consistent, albeit modest, returns. A 10-year study (2015–2024) found that 47% of active U.S. real estate ETFs outperformed passive peers, but passive strategies demonstrated superior cost efficiency and risk-adjusted performance. For example, the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (VNQ) and RWR, with expense ratios of 0.12% and 0.25% respectively, have provided stable exposure to diversified REIT portfolios, even if their returns lagged during 2025's market turbulence according to The Motley Fool.

Longer-term data (2000–2025) further underscores this dynamic. A 25-year inflation-adjusted analysis revealed that passive real estate ETFs, while vulnerable during crises like the 2008 financial collapse and the 2020 pandemic, outperformed active strategies in risk-adjusted returns during market downturns. Meanwhile, active ETFs like MORT, with higher expense ratios (0.41%), exhibited greater volatility, particularly during liquidity shocks in the mortgage sector according to Investing.com analysis.

Cost-Performance Sustainability: The Compounding Impact of Fees

Expense ratios play a pivotal role in long-term outcomes. A 20-year study by T. Rowe Price found that active funds, on average, outperformed passive peers over rolling 10-year periods, but this advantage diminished when fees were considered. For instance, a 0.5% expense ratio on a 7% gross return reduces net returns to 6.5%, while a 0.15% fee yields 6.85%-a 35-basis-point difference that compounds to millions over decades according to Mezzi's analysis. Passive ETFs like SCHH (0.07%) and VNQ (0.12%) mitigate this drag, making them attractive for long-term, buy-and-hold investors as Advisor Perspectives notes.

However, active ETFs can justify higher fees in volatile markets. During the 2023–2026 period, WTRE's focus on "new economy" real estate generated outsized returns despite its 0.45% expense ratio according to ETF Trends. Similarly, a 20-year study noted that active global REITs outperformed passive strategies by 151 basis points annually, with a $10,000 investment growing to $25,718 versus $20,788.87 as T. Rowe Price reports. This suggests that active management may add value in non-crisis periods or sectors with high return dispersion.

Strategic Alignment: Balancing Risk, Horizon, and Objectives

The choice between active and passive real estate ETFs ultimately depends on an investor's risk tolerance, time horizon, and market outlook. Active ETFs are better suited for investors seeking alpha in dynamic markets, particularly those with expertise in sectors like industrial real estate or mortgage REITs. Conversely, passive ETFs appeal to cost-conscious investors prioritizing diversification and simplicity, especially in low-volatility environments.

For long-term horizons (20–30 years), passive strategies' lower fees and compounding advantages often outweigh active underperformance during crises. However, active ETFs may offer superior risk-adjusted returns in periods of economic uncertainty, as US News reports. Investors should also consider hybrid approaches, such as allocating a portion to active ETFs for growth and another to passive ETFs for stability.

Conclusion

The active-passive debate in real estate ETFs is not a binary choice but a spectrum of trade-offs. While active strategies can outperform in high-dispersion markets, their higher fees and volatility make them less ideal for long-term, low-cost portfolios. Passive ETFs, though less dynamic, provide consistent returns and cost efficiency that compound over decades. By aligning their selections with market conditions, risk profiles, and investment horizons, investors can optimize their real estate exposure for both growth and sustainability.