PAWZ vs. WBIF

Last updated Jun 17, 2026

PAWZ (ProShares Pet Care ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. PAWZ is passively managed, while WBIF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PAWZ returned -9.14%/yr vs 3.36%/yr for WBIF. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PAWZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for WBIF.

Performance

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) 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, PAWZ achieves a -11.47% return, which is significantly lower than WBIF's 13.90% return.

PAWZ

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 4.84%
• YTD: -11.47%
• 6M: -11.85%
• 1Y: -15.91%
• 3Y*: -1.31%
• 5Y*: -9.14%
• 10Y*: —

WBIF

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 9.61%
• YTD: 13.90%
• 6M: 13.17%
• 1Y: 24.87%
• 3Y*: 8.28%
• 5Y*: 3.36%
• 10Y*: 5.81%

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

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF	-11.47%	1.21%	3.88%	12.47%	-40.08%	10.46%	61.69%	22.95%	-8.52%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	13.90%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-8.38%	16.56%	-2.71%	2.68%	-5.16%

Correlation

The correlation between PAWZ and WBIF 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2018	0.54

The correlation between PAWZ and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PAWZ	WBIF
Healthcare	32.6%	4.3%
Consumer Defensive	16.3%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	15.5%
Basic Materials	5.0%	6.5%
Technology	4.2%	34.6%
Financial Services	4.1%	21.9%
Communication Services	-	1.8%
Energy	-	0.7%
Industrials	-	10.6%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

PAWZ vs. WBIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

PAWZ

PAWZ Risk / Return Rank: 2
PAWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
PAWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
PAWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 2
PAWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
PAWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 0

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 70
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 64
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) 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.

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.

	PAWZ	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.97	2.00	-2.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.34	2.88	-4.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.36	-0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	3.79	-4.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.77	13.43	-15.21

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PAWZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.97, which is lower than the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PAWZ 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.

Drawdowns

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PAWZ drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than WBIF's maximum drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PAWZ and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	PAWZ	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.07%	-20.29%	-29.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.26%	-6.60%	-14.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.12%	-17.16%	-5.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.07%	-20.29%	-29.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-41.10%	-0.10%	-41.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.64%	-7.71%	-14.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.99%	1.86%	+7.13%

Volatility

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) is 3.76%, while WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) has a volatility of 4.77%. This indicates that PAWZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WBIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PAWZ	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.76%	4.77%	-1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.44%	9.04%	+2.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.53%	12.52%	+4.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.19%	12.93%	+7.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.64%	12.39%	+9.25%

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

PAWZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than WBIF's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

PAWZ vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

PAWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.86%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF	0.86%	0.81%	0.63%	0.44%	0.54%	0.18%	0.14%	0.35%	0.07%	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 PAWZ and WBIF in my portfolio?

PAWZ and WBIF 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, PAWZ or WBIF?

WBIF has higher volatility (4.77%) compared to PAWZ (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PAWZ dropped -50.07% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, PAWZ or WBIF?

On 5-year performance, WBIF leads with 3.36% vs -9.14% for PAWZ. On fees, PAWZ is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PAWZ has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PAWZ or WBIF?

Over the 5-year period, WBIF has performed better with a 3.36% return vs -9.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PAWZ or WBIF?

PAWZ is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

PAWZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.86%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between PAWZ and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and WBI. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PAWZ and 1.25% for WBIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs -0.97), 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.