IPAV vs. FOWF

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

IPAV (Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF) and FOWF (Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF) are both Industrials Equities funds - IPAV tracks the Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. Index while FOWF tracks the Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IPAV returned 15.97% vs 16.88% for FOWF. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IPAV charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for FOWF.

Performance

IPAV vs. FOWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF (IPAV) and Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAV achieves a 8.24% return, which is significantly lower than FOWF's 10.30% return.

IPAV

• 1D: 1.35%
• 1M: -3.87%
• 6M: 6.11%
• YTD: 8.24%
• 1Y: 15.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FOWF

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 0.74%
• 6M: 4.11%
• YTD: 10.30%
• 1Y: 16.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IPAV vs. FOWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IPAV Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF	8.24%	29.77%	-2.58%
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	10.30%	29.15%	-2.02%

Correlation

The correlation between IPAV and FOWF is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2024	0.56

The correlation between IPAV and FOWF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

IPAV vs. FOWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IPAV	FOWF
Industrials	47.1%	60.1%
Basic Materials	29.9%	1.9%
Communication Services	4.0%	5.5%
Energy	1.0%	-
Utilities	0.5%	-
Real Estate	0.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	1.3%
Technology	0.1%	31.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

IPAV vs. FOWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IPAV

IPAV Risk / Return Rank: 29
IPAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
IPAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
IPAV Omega Ratio Rank: 29
IPAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
IPAV Martin Ratio Rank: 30

FOWF

FOWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
FOWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FOWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
FOWF Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FOWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
FOWF Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

IPAV vs. FOWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF (IPAV) and Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF). 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.

	IPAV	FOWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.88	1.14	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.36	1.77	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.20	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.08	1.66	-0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.36	4.99	-1.63

IPAV vs. FOWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAV Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is comparable to the FOWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAV and FOWF, 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

IPAV vs. FOWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAV drawdown since its inception was -14.59%, which is greater than FOWF's maximum drawdown of -12.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAV and FOWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAV	FOWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.59%	-12.29%	-2.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.59%	-10.08%	-4.51%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.67%	-2.04%	-7.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.74%	-2.15%	-1.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.68%	3.33%	+1.35%

Volatility

IPAV vs. FOWF - Volatility Comparison

Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF (IPAV) has a higher volatility of 6.40% compared to Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) at 4.73%. This indicates that IPAV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FOWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IPAV	FOWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.40%	4.73%	+1.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.11%	11.96%	+4.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.99%	14.59%	+3.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.99%	16.93%	+1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.99%	16.93%	+1.06%

IPAV vs. FOWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IPAV has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than FOWF's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

IPAV vs. FOWF - Dividend Comparison

IPAV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, more than FOWF's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	0.75%	0.79%	0.00%
IPAV Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF	1.50%	1.29%	0.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IPAV and FOWF in my portfolio?

IPAV and FOWF have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IPAV or FOWF?

IPAV has higher volatility (6.40%) compared to FOWF (4.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAV dropped -14.59% vs FOWF's -12.29%.

Which ETF is better, IPAV or FOWF?

On 1-year performance, FOWF leads with 16.88% vs 15.97% for IPAV. On fees, FOWF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, FOWF has been the lower-risk option at 4.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IPAV or FOWF?

Over the 1-year period, FOWF has performed better with a 16.88% return vs 15.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IPAV or FOWF?

FOWF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for IPAV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IPAV or FOWF?

IPAV has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.75% for FOWF.

What is the main difference between IPAV and FOWF?

IPAV tracks Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. Index, while FOWF tracks Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for IPAV and 0.49% for FOWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FOWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.88), 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.