ETFT vs. FWD

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

ETFT (Fundsmith Equity ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.41 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ETFT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

ETFT vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fundsmith Equity ETF (ETFT) 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, ETFT achieves a -1.19% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 20.07% return.

ETFT

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -0.19%
• 6M: -1.82%
• YTD: -1.19%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

FWD

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: -8.86%
• 6M: 11.18%
• YTD: 20.07%
• 1Y: 39.21%
• 3Y*: 29.50%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.81%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ETFT Fundsmith Equity ETF	$21.74K	$25.41K	$19.24K
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	$39.66M	$42.86M	$36.96M

ETFT vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ETFT Fundsmith Equity ETF	-1.19%	0.06%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	20.07%	1.41%

Correlation

The correlation between ETFT and FWD is 0.41, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 2, 2025	0.41

Return for Risk

ETFT vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ETFT

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 51
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 48
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 58

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ETFT vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fundsmith Equity ETF (ETFT) 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.

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.

	ETFT	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.24	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.72	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.22	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.78	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	6.86	—

Drawdowns

ETFT vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ETFT drawdown since its inception was -14.77%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ETFT and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	ETFT	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.77%	-29.02%	+14.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-20.49%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.74%	-15.78%	+12.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.74%	-4.26%	-0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.32%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	ETFT	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	11.37%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	24.87%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.82%	29.47%	-14.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.82%	26.00%	-11.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.82%	26.00%	-11.18%

ETFT vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

ETFT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than FWD's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ETFT vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

ETFT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ETFT Fundsmith Equity ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.09%	0.11%	1.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ETFT and FWD in my portfolio?

ETFT and FWD have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ETFT or FWD?

On fees, ETFT is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ETFT or FWD?

ETFT is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

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

FWD has the higher dividend yield at 0.09%, compared with 0.00% for ETFT.

What is the main difference between ETFT and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: Fundsmith and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ETFT and 0.65% for FWD.