MVPA vs. FWD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MVPA (Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MVPA returned -2.43% vs 66.65% for FWD. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MVPA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

MVPA vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) 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, MVPA achieves a -0.96% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 35.59% return.

MVPA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: -0.96%
• 6M: -2.73%
• 1Y: -2.43%
• 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)

MVPA vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MVPA Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF	-0.96%	-2.92%	39.11%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	35.59%	32.00%	23.37%

Correlation

The correlation between MVPA and FWD is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2024	0.57

The correlation between MVPA and FWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

MVPA vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MVPA	FWD
Consumer Cyclical	32.5%	3.6%
Financial Services	21.7%	0.5%
Industrials	13.9%	19.3%
Energy	11.3%	2.6%
Communication Services	6.6%	3.4%
Technology	5.3%	59.8%
Real Estate	3.9%	0.7%
Healthcare	2.8%	6.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	0.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	0.3%

Return for Risk

MVPA vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

MVPA

MVPA Risk / Return Rank: 7
MVPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
MVPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
MVPA Omega Ratio Rank: 7
MVPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
MVPA Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

MVPA vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) 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.

	MVPA	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.13	2.51	-2.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.05	3.02	-3.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.41	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.16	5.14	-5.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.34	17.45	-17.79

MVPA vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MVPA Sharpe Ratio is -0.13, which is lower than the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MVPA 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

MVPA vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MVPA drawdown since its inception was -25.91%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MVPA and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	MVPA	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.91%	-29.02%	+3.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.15%	-13.03%	-2.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.87%	-4.88%	-5.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.37%	-4.06%	-3.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.23%	3.83%	+3.40%

Volatility

MVPA vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) is 4.84%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 12.86%. This indicates that MVPA 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

	MVPA	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.84%	12.86%	-8.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.00%	21.86%	-7.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.64%	26.73%	-8.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.94%	25.39%	-2.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.94%	25.39%	-2.45%

MVPA vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

MVPA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than FWD's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

MVPA vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

MVPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, more than FWD's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%
MVPA Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF	0.56%	0.56%	0.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MVPA and FWD in my portfolio?

MVPA and FWD have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MVPA or FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (12.86%) compared to MVPA (4.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MVPA dropped -25.91% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, MVPA or FWD?

On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 66.65% vs -2.43% for MVPA. On fees, MVPA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, MVPA has been the lower-risk option at 4.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MVPA or FWD?

Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 66.65% return vs -2.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MVPA or FWD?

MVPA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FWD.

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

MVPA has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between MVPA and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: Miller and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for MVPA and 0.65% for FWD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs -0.13), 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.