MVFG vs. FWD
MVFG (Monarch Volume Factor Global Unconstrained ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. MVFG is passively managed, while FWD is actively managed. Over the past year, MVFG returned 28.24% vs 75.95% for FWD. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MVFG charges 1.42%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.
Performance
MVFG vs. FWD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MVFG achieves a 12.12% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 40.11% return.
MVFG
- 1D
- -0.77%
- 1M
- 3.29%
- YTD
- 12.12%
- 6M
- 13.45%
- 1Y
- 28.24%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FWD
- 1D
- -0.27%
- 1M
- 14.15%
- YTD
- 40.11%
- 6M
- 39.78%
- 1Y
- 75.95%
- 3Y*
- 39.48%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MVFG vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MVFG Monarch Volume Factor Global Unconstrained ETF | 12.12% | 20.98% | 5.33% |
FWD AB Disruptors ETF | 40.11% | 32.00% | 10.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between MVFG and FWD is 0.77, 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 | 0.77 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2024 | 0.74 |
The correlation between MVFG and FWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MVFG vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank
MVFG
FWD
MVFG vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Monarch Volume Factor Global Unconstrained ETF (MVFG) 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.
| MVFG | FWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.68 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 1.50 | -0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.85 | 5.86 | -4.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.37 | 20.83 | -13.47 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MVFG | FWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.51 | 3.16 | -1.65 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.13 | 1.67 | -0.54 |
Drawdowns
MVFG vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MVFG drawdown since its inception was -15.34%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MVFG and FWD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MVFG | FWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.34% | -29.02% | +13.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.34% | -13.03% | -2.31% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -29.02% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.77% | -0.27% | -0.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.57% | -4.06% | +1.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.84% | 3.66% | +0.18% |
Volatility
MVFG vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Monarch Volume Factor Global Unconstrained ETF (MVFG) is 3.74%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 7.77%. This indicates that MVFG 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MVFG | FWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.74% | 7.77% | -4.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.72% | 18.96% | -7.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.75% | 24.15% | -5.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.39% | 24.72% | -9.33% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.39% | 24.72% | -9.33% |
MVFG vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison
MVFG has a 1.42% expense ratio, which is higher than FWD's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
MVFG vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison
MVFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.92%, more than FWD's 0.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
FWD AB Disruptors ETF | 0.08% | 0.11% | 1.89% |
MVFG Monarch Volume Factor Global Unconstrained ETF | 1.92% | 1.90% | 1.67% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MVFG and FWD have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FWD has higher volatility (7.77%) compared to MVFG (3.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MVFG dropped -15.34% vs FWD's -29.02%.
On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 75.95% vs 28.24% for MVFG. On fees, FWD is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, MVFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 75.95% return vs 28.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FWD is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.42% for MVFG.
MVFG has the higher dividend yield at 1.92%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.
They also come from different issuers: Monarch and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 1.42% for MVFG and 0.65% for FWD.
FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.16 vs 1.51), 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.
Find the right allocation for MVFG and FWD
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer