FWD vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. FWD is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FWD returned 32.83%/yr vs 9.88%/yr for ACWV. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FWD charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

FWD vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FWD achieves a 27.74% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.83% return.

FWD

• 1D: -3.47%
• 1M: -4.98%
• 6M: 18.54%
• YTD: 27.74%
• 1Y: 49.93%
• 3Y*: 32.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.92%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 1Y: 6.41%
• 3Y*: 9.88%
• 5Y*: 5.49%
• 10Y*: 7.02%

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

FWD vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	27.74%	32.00%	29.23%	23.48%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.83%	11.04%	11.38%	9.09%

Correlation

The correlation between FWD and ACWV is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2023	0.38

The correlation between FWD and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.38 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FWD vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWD	ACWV
Technology	59.8%	25.8%
Industrials	19.3%	8.1%
Healthcare	6.9%	13.0%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	5.1%
Communication Services	3.4%	11.9%
Energy	2.6%	3.7%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	9.8%
Real Estate	0.7%	0.6%
Financial Services	0.5%	13.2%
Utilities	0.3%	7.3%

Return for Risk

FWD vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 72
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 80

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 26
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

FWD vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	FWD	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.78	0.80	+0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.28	1.18	+1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.15	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.85	1.01	+2.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.20	2.89	+9.30

FWD vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWD Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWD and ACWV, 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

FWD vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWD drawdown since its inception was -29.02%, roughly equal to the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWD and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWD	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.02%	-28.82%	-0.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.03%	-6.37%	-6.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	-7.56%	-21.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.39%	-1.52%	-8.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-3.11%	-0.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.10%	2.22%	+1.88%

Volatility

FWD vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a higher volatility of 13.28% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.17%. This indicates that FWD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWD	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.28%	3.17%	+10.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.51%	6.23%	+17.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.18%	8.07%	+20.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.73%	10.27%	+15.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.73%	12.29%	+13.44%

FWD vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWD has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FWD vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than ACWV's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.93%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.09%	0.11%	1.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FWD and ACWV in my portfolio?

FWD and ACWV have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FWD or ACWV?

FWD has higher volatility (13.28%) compared to ACWV (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FWD dropped -29.02% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, FWD or ACWV?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 32.83% vs 9.88% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FWD or ACWV?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 32.83% return vs 9.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWD or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.09% for FWD.

What is the main difference between FWD and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for FWD and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 0.80), 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.