FPAG vs. WBIF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FPAG (FPA Global Equity ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FPAG returned 21.24%/yr vs 8.85%/yr for WBIF. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FPAG charges 0.49%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

FPAG vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FPA Global Equity ETF (FPAG) 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, FPAG achieves a 7.57% return, which is significantly lower than WBIF's 11.61% return.

FPAG

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 7.57%
• 6M: 8.13%
• 1Y: 25.35%
• 3Y*: 21.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WBIF

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: 5.70%
• YTD: 11.61%
• 6M: 10.57%
• 1Y: 23.01%
• 3Y*: 8.85%
• 5Y*: 2.38%
• 10Y*: 5.52%

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

FPAG vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FPAG FPA Global Equity ETF	7.57%	25.17%	15.64%	29.55%	-17.87%	2.93%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	11.61%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-8.38%	3.73%

Correlation

The correlation between FPAG and WBIF is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2021	0.72

The correlation between FPAG and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

FPAG vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FPAG	WBIF
Communication Services	17.8%	2.6%
Basic Materials	14.6%	1.0%
Technology	12.9%	19.9%
Industrials	12.2%	14.6%
Healthcare	12.0%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	11.1%
Financial Services	9.5%	31.0%
Consumer Defensive	8.9%	3.1%
Energy	1.4%	2.9%
Utilities	0.2%	10.3%
Real Estate	0.0%	-

Return for Risk

FPAG vs. WBIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPAG

FPAG Risk / Return Rank: 48
FPAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
FPAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FPAG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
FPAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
FPAG Martin Ratio Rank: 47

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 62
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 55
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

FPAG vs. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FPA Global Equity ETF (FPAG) 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.

	FPAG	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.74	1.88	-0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	2.73	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.34	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	3.50	-1.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.94	12.53	-4.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FPAG vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPAG Sharpe Ratio is 1.74, which is comparable to the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPAG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FPAG	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.74	1.88	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.19	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.45	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.66	0.30	+0.36

Drawdowns

FPAG vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPAG drawdown since its inception was -28.43%, which is greater than WBIF's maximum drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPAG and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPAG	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.43%	-20.29%	-8.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.14%	-6.60%	-5.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.06%	-17.16%	-0.90%
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	-0.60%	-0.97%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.37%	-7.74%	+1.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	1.84%	+1.36%

Volatility

FPAG vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

FPA Global Equity ETF (FPAG) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) have volatilities of 4.16% and 4.13%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FPAG	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.16%	4.13%	+0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.38%	8.63%	+2.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.64%	12.31%	+2.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.39%	12.86%	+6.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.39%	12.34%	+7.05%

FPAG vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPAG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPAG vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

FPAG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FPAG FPA Global Equity ETF	1.41%	1.99%	1.42%	1.51%	1.22%	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 FPAG and WBIF in my portfolio?

FPAG and WBIF have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FPAG or WBIF?

FPAG has higher volatility (4.16%) compared to WBIF (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPAG dropped -28.43% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, FPAG or WBIF?

On 3-year performance, FPAG leads with 21.24% vs 8.85% for WBIF. On fees, FPAG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPAG or WBIF?

Over the 3-year period, FPAG has performed better with a 21.24% return vs 8.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPAG or WBIF?

FPAG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

FPAG has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between FPAG and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: FPA and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FPAG and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.74), 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.