ACWI vs. WBIF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. ACWI is passively managed, while WBIF is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, ACWI returned 12.82%/yr vs 5.56%/yr for WBIF. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACWI charges 0.32%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

ACWI vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ACWI having a 12.47% return and WBIF slightly lower at 12.01%. Over the past 10 years, ACWI has outperformed WBIF with an annualized return of 12.82%, while WBIF has yielded a comparatively lower 5.56% annualized return.

ACWI

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 4.45%
• YTD: 12.47%
• 6M: 13.07%
• 1Y: 29.24%
• 3Y*: 21.38%
• 5Y*: 11.35%
• 10Y*: 12.82%

WBIF

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 5.33%
• YTD: 12.01%
• 6M: 11.33%
• 1Y: 23.76%
• 3Y*: 9.09%
• 5Y*: 2.46%
• 10Y*: 5.56%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWI vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	12.47%	22.41%	17.45%	22.27%	-18.39%	18.66%	16.34%	26.59%	-9.19%	24.33%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	12.01%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-8.38%	16.56%	-2.71%	2.68%	-4.68%	19.42%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWI and WBIF is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2014	0.73

The correlation between ACWI and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACWI vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWI	WBIF
Technology	29.4%	19.9%
Financial Services	16.1%	31.0%
Industrials	10.9%	14.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	11.1%
Communication Services	9.0%	2.6%
Healthcare	8.1%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	3.1%
Energy	4.2%	2.9%
Basic Materials	3.7%	1.0%
Utilities	2.6%	10.3%
Real Estate	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

ACWI vs. WBIF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ACWI

ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 70
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 71
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 73

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 64
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 70

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ACWI vs. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ACWI	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	1.94	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	2.80	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.35	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	3.62	-0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.55	12.94	+0.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACWI vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWI Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is comparable to the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWI and WBIF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ACWI	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30	1.94	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71	0.19	+0.52
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.75	0.45	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.31	+0.12

Drawdowns

ACWI vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWI drawdown since its inception was -56.00%, which is greater than WBIF's maximum drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWI and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWI	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.00%	-20.29%	-35.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.73%	-6.60%	-3.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.55%	-17.16%	+0.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.42%	-20.29%	-6.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.53%	-20.29%	-13.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-0.61%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.61%	-7.73%	-0.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.16%	1.84%	+0.32%

Volatility

ACWI vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) is 3.83%, while WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) has a volatility of 4.11%. This indicates that ACWI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WBIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWI	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.83%	4.11%	-0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.30%	8.63%	+1.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.79%	12.29%	+0.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.05%	12.86%	+3.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.11%	12.34%	+4.77%

ACWI vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWI has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWI vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

ACWI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	1.38%	1.55%	1.70%	1.88%	1.79%	1.71%	1.43%	2.33%	2.18%	1.94%	2.19%	2.56%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	0.06%	0.14%	1.17%	0.82%	0.96%	2.59%	0.09%	1.04%	0.77%	0.75%	0.67%	0.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWI and WBIF in my portfolio?

ACWI and WBIF have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACWI or WBIF?

WBIF has higher volatility (4.11%) compared to ACWI (3.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWI dropped -56.00% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, ACWI or WBIF?

On 10-year performance, ACWI leads with 12.82% vs 5.56% for WBIF. On fees, ACWI is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, ACWI has been the lower-risk option at 3.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWI or WBIF?

Over the 10-year period, ACWI has performed better with a 12.82% return vs 5.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWI or WBIF?

ACWI is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACWI or WBIF?

ACWI has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between ACWI and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for ACWI and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACWI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.94), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.