WBIF vs. FWD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) and FWD (AB Disruptors ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, WBIF returned 8.85%/yr vs 39.48%/yr for FWD. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. WBIF charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FWD.

Performance

WBIF vs. FWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) 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, WBIF achieves a 11.61% return, which is significantly lower than FWD's 40.11% return.

WBIF

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: 5.70%
• YTD: 11.61%
• 6M: 10.57%
• 1Y: 23.01%
• 3Y*: 8.85%
• 5Y*: 2.38%
• 10Y*: 5.52%

FWD

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 14.15%
• YTD: 40.11%
• 6M: 39.78%
• 1Y: 75.95%
• 3Y*: 39.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

WBIF vs. FWD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	11.61%	9.16%	3.43%	6.74%
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	40.11%	32.00%	29.23%	25.66%

Correlation

The correlation between WBIF and FWD is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2023	0.66

The correlation between WBIF and FWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

WBIF vs. FWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WBIF	FWD
Financial Services	31.0%	0.5%
Technology	19.9%	52.6%
Industrials	14.6%	17.7%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	2.4%
Utilities	10.3%	1.0%
Healthcare	3.4%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	0.8%
Energy	2.9%	2.6%
Communication Services	2.6%	2.6%
Basic Materials	1.0%	1.8%
Real Estate	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

WBIF vs. FWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 62
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 55
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 68

FWD

FWD Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FWD Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

WBIF vs. FWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) 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.

	WBIF	FWD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	3.16	-1.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	3.78	-1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.50	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.50	5.86	-2.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	20.83	-8.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

WBIF vs. FWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WBIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is lower than the FWD Sharpe Ratio of 3.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WBIF 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	WBIF	FWD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.88	3.16	-1.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.30	1.67	-1.37

Drawdowns

WBIF vs. FWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WBIF drawdown since its inception was -20.29%, smaller than the maximum FWD drawdown of -29.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WBIF and FWD.

Drawdown Indicators

	WBIF	FWD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.29%	-29.02%	+8.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.60%	-13.03%	+6.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.16%	-29.02%	+11.86%
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	-0.97%	-0.27%	-0.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.74%	-4.06%	-3.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	3.66%	-1.82%

Volatility

WBIF vs. FWD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is 4.13%, while AB Disruptors ETF (FWD) has a volatility of 7.77%. This indicates that WBIF 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

	WBIF	FWD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.13%	7.77%	-3.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.63%	18.96%	-10.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.31%	24.15%	-11.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.86%	24.72%	-11.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.34%	24.72%	-12.38%

WBIF vs. FWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

WBIF vs. FWD - Dividend Comparison

WBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than FWD's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FWD AB Disruptors ETF	0.08%	0.11%	1.89%	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 WBIF and FWD in my portfolio?

WBIF and FWD have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WBIF or FWD?

FWD has higher volatility (7.77%) compared to WBIF (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WBIF dropped -20.29% vs FWD's -29.02%.

Which ETF is better, WBIF or FWD?

On 3-year performance, FWD leads with 39.48% vs 8.85% for WBIF. On fees, FWD is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WBIF or FWD?

Over the 3-year period, FWD has performed better with a 39.48% return vs 8.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WBIF or FWD?

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

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

FWD has the higher dividend yield at 0.08%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between WBIF and FWD?

They also come from different issuers: WBI and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for WBIF and 0.65% for FWD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.16 vs 1.88), 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.