CAPE vs. WBIF

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

CAPE (iPath Shiller CAPE ETN) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. CAPE is passively managed, while WBIF is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CAPE returned 10.97%/yr vs 7.30%/yr for WBIF. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CAPE charges 0.45%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

CAPE vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAPE achieves a 1.57% return, which is significantly lower than WBIF's 14.96% return.

CAPE

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 0.07%
• 6M: 0.35%
• YTD: 1.57%
• 1Y: 3.39%
• 3Y*: 10.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WBIF

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 1.70%
• 6M: 12.70%
• YTD: 14.96%
• 1Y: 21.51%
• 3Y*: 7.30%
• 5Y*: 3.39%
• 10Y*: 5.78%

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

CAPE vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CAPE iPath Shiller CAPE ETN	1.57%	9.10%	14.40%	27.65%	-15.28%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	14.96%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-11.50%

Correlation

The correlation between CAPE and WBIF is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2022	0.68

The correlation between CAPE and WBIF shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (1 year) to 0.68 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CAPE vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CAPE	WBIF
Financial Services	24.6%	21.9%
Consumer Defensive	24.6%	2.1%
Real Estate	24.5%	-
Healthcare	23.6%	4.3%
Communication Services	21.7%	1.8%
Technology	3.9%	34.6%
Basic Materials	0.3%	6.5%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	15.5%
Industrials	0.0%	10.6%
Energy	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

CAPE vs. WBIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAPE

CAPE Risk / Return Rank: 14
CAPE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
CAPE Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
CAPE Omega Ratio Rank: 13
CAPE Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
CAPE Martin Ratio Rank: 16

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 72
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 66
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

CAPE vs. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iPath Shiller CAPE ETN (CAPE) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CAPE	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.30	1.73	-1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	2.51	-2.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.31	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.35	3.27	-2.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.24	11.62	-10.39

CAPE vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAPE Sharpe Ratio is 0.30, which is lower than the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAPE 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.

Drawdowns

CAPE vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAPE drawdown since its inception was -22.07%, which is greater than WBIF's maximum drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAPE and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAPE	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.07%	-20.29%	-1.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.68%	-6.60%	-3.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.32%	-17.16%	+2.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.87%	-0.62%	-1.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.85%	-7.67%	+2.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.75%	1.86%	+0.89%

Volatility

CAPE vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

iPath Shiller CAPE ETN (CAPE) has a higher volatility of 4.56% compared to WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) at 2.74%. This indicates that CAPE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WBIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CAPE	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.56%	2.74%	+1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.19%	9.07%	+0.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.36%	12.48%	-1.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.87%	12.89%	+3.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.87%	12.36%	+4.51%

CAPE vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAPE has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAPE vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

CAPE'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
CAPE iPath Shiller CAPE ETN	1.38%	1.39%	1.23%	1.01%	0.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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 CAPE and WBIF in my portfolio?

CAPE and WBIF have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAPE or WBIF?

CAPE has higher volatility (4.56%) compared to WBIF (2.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAPE dropped -22.07% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, CAPE or WBIF?

On 3-year performance, CAPE leads with 10.97% vs 7.30% for WBIF. On fees, CAPE is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 2.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAPE or WBIF?

Over the 3-year period, CAPE has performed better with a 10.97% return vs 7.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAPE or WBIF?

CAPE is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

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

What is the main difference between CAPE and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: Barclays Capital and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CAPE and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 0.30), 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.