INFL vs. FWD

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

INFL (Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, INFL returned 19.24%/yr vs 37.60%/yr for FWD. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INFL charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

INFL vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF (INFL) 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, INFL achieves a 8.63% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 35.20% return.

INFL

• 1D: -1.69%
• 1M: -9.48%
• YTD: 8.63%
• 6M: 7.44%
• 1Y: 16.03%
• 3Y*: 19.24%
• 5Y*: 11.29%
• 10Y*: —

FWD

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 3.15%
• YTD: 35.20%
• 6M: 32.48%
• 1Y: 62.07%
• 3Y*: 37.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

INFL vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
INFL Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF	8.63%	18.30%	23.34%	6.32%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	35.20%	32.00%	29.23%	23.48%

Correlation

The correlation between INFL and FWD is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2023	0.48

INFL vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	INFL	FWD
Energy	41.8%	2.6%
Basic Materials	21.1%	1.9%
Financial Services	20.4%	0.5%
Utilities	3.0%	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	0.8%
Industrials	1.9%	19.3%
Real Estate	1.3%	0.7%
Healthcare	1.2%	6.9%
Communication Services	0.3%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	3.6%
Technology	-	59.8%

Return for Risk

INFL vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

INFL

INFL Risk / Return Rank: 29
INFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
INFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
INFL Omega Ratio Rank: 28
INFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
INFL Martin Ratio Rank: 32

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 81
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

INFL vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF (INFL) 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.

	INFL	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	2.34	-1.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.36	2.87	-1.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.39	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	4.79	-3.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.40	16.19	-11.79

INFL vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INFL Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is lower than the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INFL 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

INFL vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INFL drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INFL and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	INFL	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.30%	-29.02%	+7.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.43%	-13.03%	+0.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.56%	-29.02%	+13.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.43%	-5.16%	-7.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.14%	-4.06%	-1.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.65%	3.85%	-0.20%

Volatility

INFL vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF (INFL) is 5.19%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 12.85%. This indicates that INFL 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

	INFL	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.19%	12.85%	-7.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.95%	21.80%	-8.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.27%	26.73%	-10.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.79%	25.37%	-7.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	25.37%	-7.68%

INFL vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

INFL has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FWD's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

INFL vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

INFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, more than FWD's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
INFL Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF	0.98%	1.26%	1.77%	1.60%	1.65%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INFL and FWD in my portfolio?

INFL and FWD have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INFL or FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (12.85%) compared to INFL (5.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INFL dropped -21.30% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, INFL or FWD?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 37.60% vs 19.24% for INFL. On fees, FWD is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, INFL has been the lower-risk option at 5.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, INFL or FWD?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 37.60% return vs 19.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INFL or FWD?

FWD is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for INFL.

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

INFL has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between INFL and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: Horizon Kinetics LLC and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for INFL and 0.65% for FWD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 0.99), 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.