FWD vs. WBIF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FWD returned 38.93%/yr vs 9.09%/yr for WBIF. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FWD charges 0.65%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

FWD vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) 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, FWD achieves a 38.47% return, which is significantly higher than WBIF's 12.01% return.

FWD

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 10.81%
• YTD: 38.47%
• 6M: 37.27%
• 1Y: 72.96%
• 3Y*: 38.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WBIF

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 5.33%
• YTD: 12.01%
• 6M: 11.33%
• 1Y: 23.76%
• 3Y*: 9.09%
• 5Y*: 2.46%
• 10Y*: 5.56%

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

FWD vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	38.47%	32.00%	29.23%	25.66%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	12.01%	9.16%	3.43%	6.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FWD and WBIF is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2023	0.65

The correlation between FWD and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

FWD vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWD	WBIF
Technology	52.6%	19.9%
Industrials	17.7%	14.6%
Healthcare	6.6%	3.4%
Communication Services	2.6%	2.6%
Energy	2.6%	2.9%
Consumer Cyclical	2.4%	11.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.0%
Utilities	1.0%	10.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	3.1%
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Financial Services	0.5%	31.0%

Return for Risk

FWD vs. WBIF — 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: 82
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 89

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 64
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) 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.

	FWD	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	1.94	+1.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.66	2.80	+0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.35	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.63	3.62	+2.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.01	12.94	+7.06
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. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWD Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is higher than the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWD 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

	FWD	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.03	1.94	+1.09
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	1.65	0.31	+1.34

Drawdowns

FWD vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWD drawdown since its inception was -29.02%, which is greater than WBIF's maximum drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWD and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWD	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.02%	-20.29%	-8.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.03%	-6.60%	-6.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	-17.16%	-11.86%
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	-1.44%	-0.61%	-0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.06%	-7.73%	+3.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	1.84%	+1.82%

Volatility

FWD vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a higher volatility of 7.87% compared to WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) at 4.11%. This indicates that FWD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WBIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWD	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.87%	4.11%	+3.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.00%	8.63%	+10.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.18%	12.29%	+11.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.72%	12.86%	+11.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.72%	12.34%	+12.38%

FWD vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWD has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

FWD vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

FWD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%	0.00%	0.00%	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 FWD and WBIF in my portfolio?

FWD and WBIF have a correlation of 0.61, 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 WBIF?

FWD has higher volatility (7.87%) compared to WBIF (4.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FWD dropped -29.02% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, FWD or WBIF?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 38.93% vs 9.09% for WBIF. On fees, FWD is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FWD or WBIF?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 38.93% return vs 9.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWD or WBIF?

FWD is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

FWD has the higher dividend yield at 0.08%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between FWD and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for FWD and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs 1.94), 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.