BLES vs. FWD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BLES (Inspire Global Hope ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. BLES is passively managed, while FWD is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BLES returned 16.04%/yr vs 39.48%/yr for FWD. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLES charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

BLES vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) and AB Disruptors ETF (FWD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLES achieves a 11.95% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 40.11% return.

BLES

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 3.04%
• YTD: 11.95%
• 6M: 12.47%
• 1Y: 23.80%
• 3Y*: 16.04%
• 5Y*: 7.38%
• 10Y*: —

FWD

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 14.15%
• YTD: 40.11%
• 6M: 39.78%
• 1Y: 75.95%
• 3Y*: 39.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BLES vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	11.95%	19.25%	5.59%	15.41%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	40.11%	32.00%	29.23%	25.66%

Correlation

The correlation between BLES and FWD is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2023	0.74

The correlation between BLES and FWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLES vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLES	FWD
Industrials	16.3%	17.7%
Technology	15.6%	52.6%
Financial Services	10.3%	0.5%
Basic Materials	7.8%	1.8%
Real Estate	6.9%	0.7%
Healthcare	5.8%	6.6%
Energy	5.8%	2.6%
Utilities	5.5%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.5%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	0.8%
Communication Services	1.0%	2.6%

Return for Risk

BLES vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLES

BLES Risk / Return Rank: 57
BLES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BLES Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BLES Omega Ratio Rank: 54
BLES Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BLES Martin Ratio Rank: 61

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

BLES vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) and AB Disruptors ETF (FWD). 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.

	BLES	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	3.16	-1.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	3.78	-1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.50	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	5.86	-2.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.93	20.83	-9.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BLES vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLES Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is lower than the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 3.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLES and FWD, 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

	BLES	FWD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	3.16	-1.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	1.67	-1.13

Drawdowns

BLES vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLES drawdown since its inception was -40.35%, which is greater than FWD's maximum drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLES and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLES	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.35%	-29.02%	-11.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.29%	-13.03%	+4.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.46%	-29.02%	+13.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.55%	-0.27%	-0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.05%	-4.06%	-1.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	3.66%	-1.48%

Volatility

BLES vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) is 3.61%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 7.77%. This indicates that BLES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FWD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BLES	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.61%	7.77%	-4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.60%	18.96%	-9.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.43%	24.15%	-11.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.46%	24.72%	-8.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.94%	24.72%	-5.78%

BLES vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLES has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than FWD's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLES vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

BLES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than FWD's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	1.77%	1.97%	1.90%	1.80%	1.64%	9.28%	1.61%	2.16%	1.73%	2.01%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLES and FWD in my portfolio?

BLES and FWD have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLES or FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (7.77%) compared to BLES (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLES dropped -40.35% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, BLES or FWD?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 39.48% vs 16.04% for BLES. On fees, BLES is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, BLES has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLES or FWD?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 39.48% return vs 16.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLES or FWD?

BLES is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLES or FWD?

BLES has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between BLES and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: Inspire and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for BLES and 0.65% for FWD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.16 vs 1.92), 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.