MVPA vs. WBIF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MVPA (Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MVPA returned -0.74% vs 23.76% for WBIF. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MVPA charges 0.60%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

MVPA vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MVPA achieves a -1.61% return, which is significantly lower than WBIF's 12.01% return.

MVPA

• 1D: 1.29%
• 1M: -4.33%
• YTD: -1.61%
• 6M: -2.69%
• 1Y: -0.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WBIF

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 5.33%
• YTD: 12.01%
• 6M: 11.33%
• 1Y: 23.76%
• 3Y*: 9.09%
• 5Y*: 2.46%
• 10Y*: 5.56%

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

MVPA vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MVPA Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF	-1.61%	-2.92%	40.69%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	12.01%	9.16%	2.55%

Correlation

The correlation between MVPA and WBIF is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024	0.69

The correlation between MVPA and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

MVPA vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MVPA	WBIF
Consumer Cyclical	31.4%	11.1%
Financial Services	21.9%	31.0%
Industrials	14.4%	14.6%
Energy	12.4%	2.9%
Communication Services	6.4%	2.6%
Technology	5.3%	19.9%
Real Estate	3.7%	-
Healthcare	2.5%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	3.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	10.3%

Return for Risk

MVPA vs. WBIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MVPA

MVPA Risk / Return Rank: 9
MVPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
MVPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
MVPA Omega Ratio Rank: 8
MVPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
MVPA Martin Ratio Rank: 9

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 64
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF). 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.

	MVPA	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	1.94	-1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.07	2.80	-2.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.35	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.05	3.62	-3.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.11	12.94	-13.05
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MVPA vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MVPA Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MVPA and WBIF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MVPA	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04	1.94	-1.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.19	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.45	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.31	+0.28

Drawdowns

MVPA vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MVPA drawdown since its inception was -25.91%, which is greater than WBIF's maximum drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MVPA and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MVPA	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.91%	-20.29%	-5.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.15%	-6.60%	-8.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.16%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.46%	-0.61%	-10.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.29%	-7.73%	+0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.97%	1.84%	+5.13%

Volatility

MVPA vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) has a higher volatility of 4.70% compared to WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) at 4.11%. This indicates that MVPA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WBIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MVPA	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.70%	4.11%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.89%	8.63%	+5.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.64%	12.29%	+6.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.05%	12.86%	+10.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.05%	12.34%	+10.71%

MVPA vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MVPA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

MVPA vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

MVPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MVPA Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF	0.57%	0.56%	0.94%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	0.06%	0.14%	1.17%	0.82%	0.96%	2.59%	0.09%	1.04%	0.77%	0.75%	0.67%	0.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MVPA and WBIF in my portfolio?

MVPA and WBIF have a correlation of 0.70, 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 WBIF?

MVPA has higher volatility (4.70%) compared to WBIF (4.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MVPA dropped -25.91% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, MVPA or WBIF?

On 1-year performance, WBIF leads with 23.76% vs -0.74% for MVPA. On fees, MVPA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MVPA or WBIF?

Over the 1-year period, WBIF has performed better with a 23.76% return vs -0.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MVPA or WBIF?

MVPA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

MVPA has the higher dividend yield at 0.57%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between MVPA and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: Miller and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for MVPA and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs -0.04), 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.