GLBL vs. FWD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GLBL (Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. GLBL is passively managed, while FWD is actively managed. Over the past year, GLBL returned 25.78% vs 66.65% for FWD. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

GLBL vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF (GLBL) and AB Disruptors ETF (FWD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLBL achieves a 8.96% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 35.59% return.

GLBL

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: -1.58%
• YTD: 8.96%
• 6M: 8.11%
• 1Y: 25.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FWD

• 1D: -4.88%
• 1M: 3.45%
• YTD: 35.59%
• 6M: 33.13%
• 1Y: 66.65%
• 3Y*: 37.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLBL vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLBL Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF	8.96%	20.14%	5.49%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	35.59%	32.00%	6.38%

Correlation

The correlation between GLBL and FWD is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.85

The correlation between GLBL and FWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLBL vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLBL	FWD
Technology	36.5%	59.8%
Communication Services	15.9%	3.4%
Financial Services	14.0%	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	3.6%
Healthcare	7.3%	6.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	0.8%
Industrials	3.3%	19.3%
Real Estate	3.1%	0.7%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.9%
Energy	1.3%	2.6%
Utilities	0.4%	0.3%

Return for Risk

GLBL vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLBL

GLBL Risk / Return Rank: 57
GLBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
GLBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
GLBL Omega Ratio Rank: 58
GLBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
GLBL Martin Ratio Rank: 58

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 81
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

GLBL vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF (GLBL) and AB Disruptors ETF (FWD). 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.

	GLBL	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.80	2.51	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	3.02	-0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.41	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	5.14	-2.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.33	17.45	-8.12

GLBL vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLBL Sharpe Ratio is 1.80, which is comparable to the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLBL and FWD, 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

GLBL vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLBL drawdown since its inception was -19.75%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLBL and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLBL	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.75%	-29.02%	+9.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.97%	-13.03%	+2.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.27%	-4.88%	+0.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.58%	-4.06%	+1.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	3.83%	-1.06%

Volatility

GLBL vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF (GLBL) is 5.99%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 12.86%. This indicates that GLBL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FWD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLBL	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.99%	12.86%	-6.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.56%	21.86%	-10.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.40%	26.73%	-12.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.77%	25.39%	-8.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.77%	25.39%	-8.62%

GLBL vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GLBL and FWD have an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Dividends

GLBL vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

GLBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, more than FWD's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%
GLBL Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF	0.78%	0.86%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLBL and FWD in my portfolio?

GLBL and FWD have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLBL or FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (12.86%) compared to GLBL (5.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLBL dropped -19.75% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, GLBL or FWD?

On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 66.65% vs 25.78% for GLBL. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. On volatility, GLBL has been the lower-risk option at 5.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLBL or FWD?

Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 66.65% return vs 25.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLBL or FWD?

GLBL and FWD have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

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

GLBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between GLBL and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and AllianceBernstein.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 1.80), 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.