FOWF vs. RIFR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FOWF (Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF) and RIFR (Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF) are both Industrials Equities funds. FOWF is passively managed, while RIFR is actively managed. Over the past year, FOWF returned 19.60% vs 15.55% for RIFR. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FOWF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for RIFR.

Performance

FOWF vs. RIFR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FOWF achieves a 7.27% return, which is significantly lower than RIFR's 9.78% return.

FOWF

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -1.18%
• YTD: 7.27%
• 6M: 6.25%
• 1Y: 19.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RIFR

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: -0.95%
• YTD: 9.78%
• 6M: 10.57%
• 1Y: 15.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FOWF vs. RIFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	7.27%	15.53%
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	9.78%	7.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FOWF and RIFR is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2025	0.31

Return for Risk

FOWF vs. RIFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FOWF

FOWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
FOWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FOWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
FOWF Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FOWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
FOWF Martin Ratio Rank: 40

RIFR

RIFR Risk / Return Rank: 44
RIFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
RIFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
RIFR Omega Ratio Rank: 41
RIFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
RIFR Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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. RIFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FOWF	RIFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	1.47	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	2.04	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.26	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	2.29	-0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.08	7.07	-0.99

FOWF vs. RIFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FOWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is comparable to the RIFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FOWF and RIFR, 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

FOWF vs. RIFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FOWF drawdown since its inception was -12.29%, which is greater than RIFR's maximum drawdown of -6.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FOWF and RIFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FOWF	RIFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.29%	-6.80%	-5.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.08%	-6.80%	-3.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.74%	-3.16%	-1.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.11%	-1.66%	-0.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	2.20%	+1.03%

Volatility

FOWF vs. RIFR - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) has a higher volatility of 5.43% compared to Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) at 3.33%. This indicates that FOWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RIFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FOWF	RIFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.43%	3.33%	+2.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.09%	8.69%	+3.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.48%	10.66%	+3.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.05%	10.68%	+6.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.05%	10.68%	+6.37%

FOWF vs. RIFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FOWF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than RIFR's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FOWF vs. RIFR - Dividend Comparison

FOWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, less than RIFR's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	0.77%	0.79%
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	0.89%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FOWF and RIFR in my portfolio?

FOWF and RIFR have a correlation of 0.30, 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 RIFR?

FOWF has higher volatility (5.43%) compared to RIFR (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FOWF dropped -12.29% vs RIFR's -6.80%.

Which ETF is better, FOWF or RIFR?

On 1-year performance, FOWF leads with 19.60% vs 15.55% for RIFR. On fees, FOWF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, RIFR has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FOWF or RIFR?

Over the 1-year period, FOWF has performed better with a 19.60% return vs 15.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FOWF or RIFR?

FOWF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for RIFR.

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

RIFR has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.77% for FOWF.

What is the main difference between FOWF and RIFR?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Russell. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FOWF and 0.59% for RIFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RIFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 vs 1.36), 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.