RW vs. WBIF

Last updated Jul 2, 2026

RW (Rainwater Equity ETF) and WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Over the past year, RW returned -0.82% vs 23.03% for WBIF. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 1.25% expense ratio.

Performance

RW vs. WBIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rainwater Equity ETF (RW) 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, RW achieves a 2.76% return, which is significantly lower than WBIF's 15.29% return.

RW

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

WBIF

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.45%
• YTD: 15.29%
• 6M: 15.29%
• 1Y: 23.03%
• 3Y*: 7.87%
• 5Y*: 3.17%
• 10Y*: 5.95%

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

RW vs. WBIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RW Rainwater Equity ETF	2.76%	-0.44%
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	15.29%	10.47%

Correlation

The correlation between RW and WBIF is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.64

The correlation between RW and WBIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

RW vs. WBIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RW	WBIF
Industrials	42.1%	10.6%
Technology	30.7%	34.6%
Financial Services	9.1%	21.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	15.5%
Communication Services	4.6%	1.8%
Basic Materials	2.6%	6.5%
Healthcare	1.9%	4.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.3%	2.1%
Real Estate	0.3%	-
Utilities	0.2%	2.0%
Energy	0.2%	0.7%

Return for Risk

RW vs. WBIF — 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

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 72
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 67
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. WBIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	RW	WBIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	1.86	-1.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.04	2.69	-2.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.34	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.05	3.51	-3.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.14	12.42	-12.56

RW vs. WBIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RW Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the WBIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RW 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

RW vs. WBIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RW drawdown since its inception was -17.04%, smaller than the maximum WBIF drawdown of -20.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RW and WBIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RW	WBIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.04%	-20.29%	+3.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.04%	-6.60%	-10.44%
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	-3.42%	-0.04%	-3.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-7.69%	+2.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.11%	1.86%	+4.25%

Volatility

RW vs. WBIF - Volatility Comparison

Rainwater Equity ETF (RW) has a higher volatility of 4.56% compared to WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) at 3.96%. This indicates that RW'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

	RW	WBIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.56%	3.96%	+0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.38%	9.12%	+4.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.70%	12.46%	+3.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.64%	12.90%	+2.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.64%	12.35%	+3.29%

RW vs. WBIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both RW and WBIF have an expense ratio of 1.25%.

Dividends

RW vs. WBIF - Dividend Comparison

RW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.10%, more than WBIF's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RW Rainwater Equity ETF	0.10%	0.10%	0.00%	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 RW and WBIF in my portfolio?

RW and WBIF have a correlation of 0.64, 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 WBIF?

RW has higher volatility (4.56%) compared to WBIF (3.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RW dropped -17.04% vs WBIF's -20.29%.

Which ETF is better, RW or WBIF?

On 1-year performance, WBIF leads with 23.03% vs -0.82% for RW. Both ETFs have the same 1.25% expense ratio. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 3.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RW or WBIF?

Over the 1-year period, WBIF has performed better with a 23.03% 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 WBIF?

RW and WBIF have the same expense ratio: 1.25% per year.

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

RW has the higher dividend yield at 0.10%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between RW and WBIF?

They also come from different issuers: Rainwater Equity and WBI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 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.