RW vs. FWD

Last updated Jul 2, 2026

RW (Rainwater Equity ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Over the past year, RW returned -0.82% vs 62.84% for FWD. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RW charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

RW vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rainwater Equity ETF (RW) 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, RW achieves a 2.76% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 36.87% return.

RW

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 1.92%
• 6M: 2.76%
• YTD: 2.76%
• 1Y: -0.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FWD

• 1D: -3.52%
• 1M: -0.49%
• 6M: 36.87%
• YTD: 36.87%
• 1Y: 62.84%
• 3Y*: 37.01%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RW vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RW Rainwater Equity ETF	2.76%	-0.44%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	36.87%	23.75%

Correlation

The correlation between RW and FWD is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.71

The correlation between RW and FWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

RW vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RW	FWD
Industrials	42.1%	19.3%
Technology	30.7%	59.8%
Financial Services	9.1%	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	3.6%
Communication Services	4.6%	3.4%
Basic Materials	2.6%	1.9%
Healthcare	1.9%	6.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.3%	0.8%
Real Estate	0.3%	0.7%
Utilities	0.2%	0.3%
Energy	0.2%	2.6%

Return for Risk

RW vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

RW

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

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 83
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 76
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

RW vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rainwater Equity ETF (RW) 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.

	RW	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	2.32	-2.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.04	2.84	-2.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.38	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.05	4.85	-4.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.14	16.27	-16.41

RW vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RW Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RW 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

RW vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RW drawdown since its inception was -17.04%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RW and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	RW	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.04%	-29.02%	+11.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.04%	-13.03%	-4.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.42%	-3.98%	+0.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-4.06%	-1.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.11%	3.87%	+2.24%

Volatility

RW vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rainwater Equity ETF (RW) is 4.56%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 13.93%. This indicates that RW 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

	RW	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.56%	13.93%	-9.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.38%	22.68%	-9.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.70%	27.33%	-11.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.64%	25.54%	-9.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.64%	25.54%	-9.90%

RW vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

RW has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FWD's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

RW vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

RW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.10%, more than FWD's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%
RW Rainwater Equity ETF	0.10%	0.10%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RW and FWD in my portfolio?

RW and FWD have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RW or FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (13.93%) compared to RW (4.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RW dropped -17.04% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, RW or FWD?

On 1-year performance, FWD leads with 62.84% vs -0.82% for RW. On fees, FWD is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, RW has been the lower-risk option at 4.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RW or FWD?

Over the 1-year period, FWD has performed better with a 62.84% return vs -0.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RW or FWD?

FWD is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for RW.

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

RW has the higher dividend yield at 0.10%, compared with 0.08% for FWD.

What is the main difference between RW and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: Rainwater Equity and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for RW and 0.65% for FWD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs -0.05), 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.