RIFR vs. FOWF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RIFR (Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF) and FOWF (Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF) are both Industrials Equities funds. RIFR is actively managed, while FOWF is passively managed. Over the past year, RIFR returned 15.55% vs 19.60% for FOWF. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RIFR charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for FOWF.

Performance

RIFR vs. FOWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) and Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RIFR achieves a 9.78% return, which is significantly higher than FOWF's 7.27% return.

RIFR

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: -0.95%
• YTD: 9.78%
• 6M: 10.57%
• 1Y: 15.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FOWF

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -1.18%
• YTD: 7.27%
• 6M: 6.25%
• 1Y: 19.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RIFR vs. FOWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	9.78%	7.25%
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	7.27%	15.53%

Correlation

The correlation between RIFR and FOWF is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2025	0.31

Return for Risk

RIFR vs. FOWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RIFR

RIFR Risk / Return Rank: 44
RIFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
RIFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
RIFR Omega Ratio Rank: 41
RIFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
RIFR Martin Ratio Rank: 44

FOWF

FOWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
FOWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FOWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
FOWF Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FOWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
FOWF Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

RIFR vs. FOWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) and Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF). 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.

	RIFR	FOWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.47	1.36	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	2.07	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.24	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.29	1.95	+0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.07	6.08	+0.99

RIFR vs. FOWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RIFR Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is comparable to the FOWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RIFR and FOWF, 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

RIFR vs. FOWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RIFR drawdown since its inception was -6.80%, smaller than the maximum FOWF drawdown of -12.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RIFR and FOWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RIFR	FOWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.80%	-12.29%	+5.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.80%	-10.08%	+3.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.16%	-4.74%	+1.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.66%	-2.11%	+0.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.20%	3.23%	-1.03%

Volatility

RIFR vs. FOWF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) is 3.33%, while Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) has a volatility of 5.43%. This indicates that RIFR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FOWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RIFR	FOWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.33%	5.43%	-2.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.69%	12.09%	-3.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.66%	14.48%	-3.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.68%	17.05%	-6.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.68%	17.05%	-6.37%

RIFR vs. FOWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RIFR has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FOWF's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

RIFR vs. FOWF - Dividend Comparison

RIFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, more than FOWF's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
FOWF Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF	0.77%	0.79%
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	0.89%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RIFR and FOWF in my portfolio?

RIFR and FOWF have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RIFR or FOWF?

FOWF has higher volatility (5.43%) compared to RIFR (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RIFR dropped -6.80% vs FOWF's -12.29%.

Which ETF is better, RIFR or FOWF?

On 1-year performance, FOWF leads with 19.60% vs 15.55% for RIFR. On fees, FOWF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, RIFR has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RIFR or FOWF?

Over the 1-year period, FOWF has performed better with a 19.60% return vs 15.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RIFR or FOWF?

FOWF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for RIFR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RIFR or FOWF?

RIFR has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.77% for FOWF.

What is the main difference between RIFR and FOWF?

They also come from different issuers: Russell and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for RIFR and 0.49% for FOWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RIFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 vs 1.36), 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.