PAWZ vs. WLDR

Last updated Jun 17, 2026

PAWZ (ProShares Pet Care ETF) and WLDR (Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF) are both Global Equities funds - PAWZ tracks the FactSet Pet Care Index while WLDR tracks the Thomson Reuters StarMine Affinity World Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PAWZ returned -9.14%/yr vs 19.17%/yr for WLDR. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PAWZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.67%/yr for WLDR.

Performance

PAWZ vs. WLDR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) and Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR). 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 WLDR's 31.48% return.

PAWZ

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

WLDR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: 10.66%
• YTD: 31.48%
• 6M: 33.24%
• 1Y: 58.15%
• 3Y*: 31.44%
• 5Y*: 19.17%
• 10Y*: —

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

PAWZ vs. WLDR - 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%
WLDR Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF	31.48%	31.24%	22.74%	18.93%	-10.44%	26.77%	-1.93%	21.54%	-10.54%

Correlation

The correlation between PAWZ and WLDR is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2018	0.56

The correlation between PAWZ and WLDR shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (1 year) to 0.60 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PAWZ vs. WLDR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PAWZ	WLDR
Healthcare	32.6%	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	16.3%	9.1%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	6.2%
Basic Materials	5.0%	3.5%
Technology	4.2%	29.9%
Financial Services	4.1%	13.4%
Communication Services	-	10.9%
Energy	-	4.7%
Industrials	-	8.6%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

PAWZ vs. WLDR — 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

WLDR

WLDR Risk / Return Rank: 94
WLDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
WLDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
WLDR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
WLDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
WLDR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. WLDR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) and Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR). 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	WLDR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.97	3.65	-4.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.34	4.76	-6.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.62	-0.77
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	6.60	-7.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.77	25.67	-27.45

PAWZ vs. WLDR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PAWZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.97, which is lower than the WLDR Sharpe Ratio of 3.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PAWZ and WLDR, 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. WLDR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PAWZ drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than WLDR's maximum drawdown of -44.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PAWZ and WLDR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PAWZ	WLDR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.07%	-44.69%	-5.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.26%	-8.86%	-12.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.12%	-20.30%	-2.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.07%	-23.77%	-26.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-41.10%	-1.06%	-40.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.64%	-8.60%	-14.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.99%	2.27%	+6.72%

Volatility

PAWZ vs. WLDR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) is 3.76%, while Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF (WLDR) has a volatility of 7.41%. This indicates that PAWZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WLDR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PAWZ	WLDR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.76%	7.41%	-3.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.44%	13.24%	-1.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.53%	16.03%	+0.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.19%	17.41%	+2.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.64%	21.01%	+0.63%

PAWZ vs. WLDR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PAWZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than WLDR's 0.67% expense ratio.

Dividends

PAWZ vs. WLDR - Dividend Comparison

PAWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.86%, less than WLDR's 6.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF	0.86%	0.81%	0.63%	0.44%	0.54%	0.18%	0.14%	0.35%	0.07%
WLDR Affinity World Leaders Equity ETF	6.63%	9.01%	13.99%	2.28%	2.10%	7.55%	1.80%	2.48%	2.82%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PAWZ and WLDR in my portfolio?

PAWZ and WLDR have a correlation of 0.40, 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 WLDR?

WLDR has higher volatility (7.41%) compared to PAWZ (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PAWZ dropped -50.07% vs WLDR's -44.69%.

Which ETF is better, PAWZ or WLDR?

On 5-year performance, WLDR leads with 19.17% 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 WLDR?

Over the 5-year period, WLDR has performed better with a 19.17% 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 WLDR?

PAWZ is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.67% for WLDR.

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

WLDR has the higher dividend yield at 6.63%, compared with 0.86% for PAWZ.

What is the main difference between PAWZ and WLDR?

PAWZ tracks FactSet Pet Care Index, while WLDR tracks Thomson Reuters StarMine Affinity World Leaders Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Regents Park Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PAWZ and 0.67% for WLDR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WLDR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.65 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.