RWLC vs. FTIF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RWLC (Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen US Large Cap Equity ETF) and FTIF (First Trust Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - RWLC tracks the S&P 500 while FTIF tracks the Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RWLC returned 23.44%/yr vs 14.45%/yr for FTIF. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RWLC charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FTIF.

Performance

RWLC vs. FTIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen US Large Cap Equity ETF (RWLC) and First Trust Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity ETF (FTIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWLC achieves a 11.76% return, which is significantly lower than FTIF's 22.14% return.

RWLC

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: 11.76%
• 6M: 11.55%
• 1Y: 22.59%
• 3Y*: 23.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FTIF

• 1D: 1.19%
• 1M: -1.89%
• YTD: 22.14%
• 6M: 21.22%
• 1Y: 30.71%
• 3Y*: 14.45%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWLC vs. FTIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RWLC Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen US Large Cap Equity ETF	11.76%	20.23%	28.58%	15.88%
FTIF First Trust Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity ETF	22.14%	7.79%	0.50%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between RWLC and FTIF is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 14, 2023	0.50

Over the past year, the correlation between RWLC and FTIF has dropped to 0.23 - well below their long-term average of 0.50, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RWLC vs. FTIF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWLC	FTIF
Technology	27.9%	2.0%
Financial Services	15.7%	-
Healthcare	11.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.2%	4.0%
Communication Services	9.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	-
Energy	6.6%	38.0%
Industrials	5.6%	18.0%
Basic Materials	2.2%	22.0%
Utilities	1.9%	-
Real Estate	0.7%	14.0%

Return for Risk

RWLC vs. FTIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWLC

RWLC Risk / Return Rank: 49
RWLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
RWLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
RWLC Omega Ratio Rank: 47
RWLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
RWLC Martin Ratio Rank: 52

FTIF

FTIF Risk / Return Rank: 71
FTIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
FTIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
FTIF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
FTIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FTIF Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

RWLC vs. FTIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen US Large Cap Equity ETF (RWLC) and First Trust Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity ETF (FTIF). 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.

	RWLC	FTIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	2.01	-0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	2.79	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.35	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.43	5.65	-3.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.84	15.88	-7.04

RWLC vs. FTIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is comparable to the FTIF Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWLC and FTIF, 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

RWLC vs. FTIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWLC drawdown since its inception was -21.00%, smaller than the maximum FTIF drawdown of -27.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWLC and FTIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWLC	FTIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.00%	-27.83%	+6.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.33%	-5.46%	-3.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.20%	-27.83%	+11.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.45%	-3.40%	+1.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.39%	-5.95%	+0.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	1.94%	+0.62%

Volatility

RWLC vs. FTIF - Volatility Comparison

Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen US Large Cap Equity ETF (RWLC) and First Trust Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity ETF (FTIF) have volatilities of 4.64% and 4.51%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWLC	FTIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.64%	4.51%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.48%	10.69%	-0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.38%	15.37%	-0.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.51%	18.92%	-2.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.51%	18.92%	-2.41%

RWLC vs. FTIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWLC has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than FTIF's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWLC vs. FTIF - Dividend Comparison

RWLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.14%, more than FTIF's 1.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FTIF First Trust Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity ETF	1.14%	1.45%	2.88%	1.55%	0.00%	0.00%
RWLC Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen US Large Cap Equity ETF	13.14%	14.69%	0.98%	1.63%	1.39%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWLC and FTIF in my portfolio?

RWLC and FTIF have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWLC or FTIF?

RWLC has higher volatility (4.64%) compared to FTIF (4.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWLC dropped -21.00% vs FTIF's -27.83%.

Which ETF is better, RWLC or FTIF?

On 3-year performance, RWLC leads with 23.44% vs 14.45% for FTIF. On fees, RWLC is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, FTIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWLC or FTIF?

Over the 3-year period, RWLC has performed better with a 23.44% return vs 14.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWLC or FTIF?

RWLC is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FTIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RWLC or FTIF?

RWLC has the higher dividend yield at 13.14%, compared with 1.14% for FTIF.

What is the main difference between RWLC and FTIF?

RWLC tracks S&P 500, while FTIF tracks Bloomberg Inflation Sensitive Equity Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for RWLC and 0.60% for FTIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.58), 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.