WBIF vs. GVAL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) and GVAL (Cambria Global Value ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, WBIF returned 5.81%/yr vs 11.81%/yr for GVAL. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. WBIF charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for GVAL.

Performance

WBIF vs. GVAL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) and Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WBIF achieves a 12.87% return, which is significantly lower than GVAL's 17.40% return. Over the past 10 years, WBIF has underperformed GVAL with an annualized return of 5.81%, while GVAL has yielded a comparatively higher 11.81% annualized return.

WBIF

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 5.03%
• YTD: 12.87%
• 6M: 11.53%
• 1Y: 24.34%
• 3Y*: 8.41%
• 5Y*: 3.08%
• 10Y*: 5.81%

GVAL

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 4.28%
• YTD: 17.40%
• 6M: 17.33%
• 1Y: 43.62%
• 3Y*: 27.44%
• 5Y*: 14.14%
• 10Y*: 11.81%

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

WBIF vs. GVAL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	12.87%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-8.38%	16.56%	-2.71%	2.68%	-4.68%	19.42%
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	17.40%	55.87%	2.59%	13.30%	-7.98%	10.70%	-8.51%	17.24%	-14.30%	29.50%

Correlation

The correlation between WBIF and GVAL is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 27, 2014	0.50

The correlation between WBIF and GVAL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

WBIF vs. GVAL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WBIF	GVAL
Technology	34.6%	9.4%
Financial Services	21.9%	16.9%
Consumer Cyclical	15.5%	2.7%
Industrials	10.6%	3.6%
Basic Materials	6.5%	7.7%
Healthcare	4.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	1.8%
Utilities	2.0%	3.7%
Communication Services	1.8%	4.3%
Energy	0.7%	6.8%
Real Estate	-	6.2%

Return for Risk

WBIF vs. GVAL — Risk / Return Rank

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

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 70
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 63
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

GVAL

GVAL Risk / Return Rank: 84
GVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
GVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 86
GVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
GVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. GVAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	WBIF	GVAL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.96	2.82	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.72	-0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.50	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	3.81	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.14	14.52	-1.38

WBIF vs. GVAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WBIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.96, which is lower than the GVAL Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WBIF and GVAL, 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

WBIF vs. GVAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WBIF drawdown since its inception was -20.29%, smaller than the maximum GVAL drawdown of -46.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WBIF and GVAL.

Drawdown Indicators

	WBIF	GVAL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.29%	-46.82%	+26.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.60%	-11.50%	+4.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.16%	-15.72%	-1.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.29%	-30.83%	+10.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.29%	-46.82%	+26.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	-2.31%	+1.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-13.82%	+6.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.86%	3.01%	-1.15%

Volatility

WBIF vs. GVAL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is 4.73%, while Cambria Global Value ETF (GVAL) has a volatility of 6.37%. This indicates that WBIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GVAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WBIF	GVAL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.73%	6.37%	-1.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.10%	13.81%	-4.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.51%	15.55%	-3.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.90%	18.60%	-5.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.37%	19.00%	-6.63%

WBIF vs. GVAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

WBIF has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than GVAL's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

WBIF vs. GVAL - Dividend Comparison

WBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than GVAL's 2.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GVAL Cambria Global Value ETF	2.43%	2.93%	4.75%	6.12%	5.05%	2.97%	1.90%	2.84%	4.65%	2.00%	2.54%	2.11%
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 GVAL in my portfolio?

WBIF and GVAL have a correlation of 0.51, 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 GVAL?

GVAL has higher volatility (6.37%) compared to WBIF (4.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WBIF dropped -20.29% vs GVAL's -46.82%.

Which ETF is better, WBIF or GVAL?

On 10-year performance, GVAL leads with 11.81% vs 5.81% for WBIF. On fees, GVAL is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WBIF or GVAL?

Over the 10-year period, GVAL has performed better with a 11.81% return vs 5.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WBIF or GVAL?

GVAL is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

GVAL has the higher dividend yield at 2.43%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between WBIF and GVAL?

They also come from different issuers: WBI and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for WBIF and 0.64% for GVAL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs 1.96), 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.