FWD vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FWD is a Global Equities fund actively managed by AllianceBernstein, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. FWD is actively managed, while RBIL is passively managed. Over the past year, FWD returned 75.95% vs 4.57% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. FWD charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

FWD vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FWD achieves a 40.11% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.70% return.

FWD

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 14.15%
• YTD: 40.11%
• 6M: 39.78%
• 1Y: 75.95%
• 3Y*: 39.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 6M: 2.79%
• 1Y: 4.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FWD vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	40.11%	30.88%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.70%	2.91%

Correlation

The correlation between FWD and RBIL is -0.25, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	-0.23

Return for Risk

FWD vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 98
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.

	FWD	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.16	5.01	-1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	7.92	-4.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	2.39	-0.88
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.86	17.00	-11.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.83	70.66	-49.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FWD vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWD Sharpe Ratio is 3.16, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWD and RBIL, 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

	FWD	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.16	5.01	-1.85
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.67	4.28	-2.61

Drawdowns

FWD vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWD drawdown since its inception was -29.02%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWD and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWD	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.02%	-0.50%	-28.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.03%	-0.27%	-12.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	0.00%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.06%	-0.06%	-4.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	0.07%	+3.59%

Volatility

FWD vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a higher volatility of 7.77% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that FWD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWD	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.77%	0.30%	+7.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.96%	0.79%	+18.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.15%	0.92%	+23.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.72%	1.05%	+23.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.72%	1.05%	+23.67%

FWD vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWD has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

FWD vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, less than RBIL's 4.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.60%	3.65%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FWD and RBIL in my portfolio?

FWD and RBIL have a correlation of -0.25, 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 RBIL?

FWD has higher volatility (7.77%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FWD dropped -29.02% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

Which ETF is better, FWD or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 75.95% vs 4.57% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FWD or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 75.95% return vs 4.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWD or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between FWD and RBIL?

FWD is categorized as Global Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for FWD and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 3.16), 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.