FOWF vs. IGF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FOWF (Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both Industrials Equities funds - FOWF tracks the Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare Index while IGF tracks the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FOWF returned 22.10% vs 15.30% for IGF. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FOWF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.

Performance

FOWF vs. IGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FOWF achieves a 9.44% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 8.05% return.

FOWF

• 1D: -1.88%
• 1M: 3.45%
• YTD: 9.44%
• 6M: 12.30%
• 1Y: 22.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IGF

• 1D: -0.57%
• 1M: -1.85%
• YTD: 8.05%
• 6M: 7.91%
• 1Y: 15.30%
• 3Y*: 15.91%
• 5Y*: 10.15%
• 10Y*: 8.29%

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

FOWF vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	9.44%	29.15%	0.39%
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	8.05%	21.31%	2.51%

Correlation

The correlation between FOWF and IGF is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.44

FOWF vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FOWF	IGF
Industrials	62.2%	38.8%
Technology	29.2%	-
Communication Services	5.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	0.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	20.1%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	41.1%

Return for Risk

FOWF vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FOWF

FOWF Risk / Return Rank: 46
FOWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
FOWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
FOWF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
FOWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
FOWF Martin Ratio Rank: 44

IGF

IGF Risk / Return Rank: 44
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 39
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

FOWF vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). 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.

	FOWF	IGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	1.47	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	2.10	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.26	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	2.62	-0.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.02	8.05	-1.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FOWF vs. IGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FOWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is comparable to the IGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FOWF and IGF, 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

	FOWF	IGF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.59	1.47	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.49	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.24	+1.39

Drawdowns

FOWF vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FOWF drawdown since its inception was -12.29%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FOWF and IGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FOWF	IGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.29%	-58.33%	+46.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.08%	-5.87%	-4.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.28%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.83%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.81%	-4.43%	+1.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-11.87%	+9.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.16%	1.90%	+1.26%

Volatility

FOWF vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) has a higher volatility of 4.80% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.68%. This indicates that FOWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FOWF	IGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.80%	3.68%	+1.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.62%	8.59%	+3.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.94%	10.49%	+3.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.89%	13.99%	+2.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.89%	16.83%	+0.06%

FOWF vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FOWF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

FOWF vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison

FOWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than IGF's 2.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	0.73%	0.79%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	2.98%	3.23%	3.21%	3.36%	2.67%	2.42%	2.33%	3.27%	3.52%	2.95%	2.98%	3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FOWF and IGF in my portfolio?

FOWF and IGF have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FOWF or IGF?

FOWF has higher volatility (4.80%) compared to IGF (3.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FOWF dropped -12.29% vs IGF's -58.33%.

Which ETF is better, FOWF or IGF?

On 1-year performance, FOWF leads with 22.10% vs 15.30% for IGF. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FOWF or IGF?

Over the 1-year period, FOWF has performed better with a 22.10% return vs 15.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FOWF or IGF?

IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for FOWF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FOWF or IGF?

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.98%, compared with 0.73% for FOWF.

What is the main difference between FOWF and IGF?

FOWF tracks Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FOWF and 0.39% for IGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FOWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 1.47), 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.