WBIF vs. NZAC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) and NZAC (SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF) are both Global Equities funds. WBIF is actively managed, while NZAC is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, WBIF returned 5.52%/yr vs 12.16%/yr for NZAC. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. WBIF charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for NZAC.

Performance

WBIF vs. NZAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). 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 higher than NZAC's 8.83% return. Over the past 10 years, WBIF has underperformed NZAC with an annualized return of 5.52%, while NZAC has yielded a comparatively higher 12.16% annualized 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%

NZAC

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 4.49%
• YTD: 8.83%
• 6M: 9.51%
• 1Y: 24.74%
• 3Y*: 19.06%
• 5Y*: 9.88%
• 10Y*: 12.16%

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

WBIF vs. NZAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	11.61%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-8.38%	16.56%	-2.71%	2.68%	-4.68%	19.42%
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	8.83%	20.55%	16.67%	23.22%	-19.77%	18.35%	17.21%	28.24%	-9.80%	22.93%

Correlation

The correlation between WBIF and NZAC is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 28, 2014	0.66

The correlation between WBIF and NZAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

WBIF vs. NZAC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WBIF	NZAC
Financial Services	31.0%	13.1%
Technology	19.9%	34.3%
Industrials	14.6%	7.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	8.2%
Utilities	10.3%	1.4%
Healthcare	3.4%	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	1.0%
Energy	2.9%	1.2%
Communication Services	2.6%	8.5%
Basic Materials	1.0%	1.9%
Real Estate	-	5.2%

Return for Risk

WBIF vs. NZAC — 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

NZAC

NZAC Risk / Return Rank: 56
NZAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
NZAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
NZAC Omega Ratio Rank: 55
NZAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
NZAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. NZAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). 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	NZAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	1.92	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	2.71	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.34	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.50	2.46	+1.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.53	10.68	+1.85
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. NZAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WBIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is comparable to the NZAC Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WBIF and NZAC, 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	NZAC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.88	1.92	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19	0.59	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.71	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.30	0.61	-0.31

Drawdowns

WBIF vs. NZAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WBIF drawdown since its inception was -20.29%, smaller than the maximum NZAC drawdown of -33.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WBIF and NZAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	WBIF	NZAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.29%	-33.72%	+13.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.60%	-10.10%	+3.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.16%	-16.19%	-0.97%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.29%	-28.31%	+8.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.29%	-33.72%	+13.43%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.97%	-0.82%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.74%	-5.32%	-2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	2.32%	-0.48%

Volatility

WBIF vs. NZAC - Volatility Comparison

WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) has a higher volatility of 4.13% compared to SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) at 3.72%. This indicates that WBIF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NZAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WBIF	NZAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.13%	3.72%	+0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.63%	10.34%	-1.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.31%	12.94%	-0.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.86%	16.81%	-3.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.34%	17.14%	-4.80%

WBIF vs. NZAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

WBIF has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than NZAC's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

WBIF vs. NZAC - Dividend Comparison

WBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than NZAC's 2.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	2.04%	1.90%	1.88%	1.65%	1.81%	1.62%	1.59%	2.17%	2.53%	2.20%	2.00%	2.40%
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 NZAC in my portfolio?

WBIF and NZAC have a correlation of 0.70, 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 NZAC?

WBIF has higher volatility (4.13%) compared to NZAC (3.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WBIF dropped -20.29% vs NZAC's -33.72%.

Which ETF is better, WBIF or NZAC?

On 10-year performance, NZAC leads with 12.16% vs 5.52% for WBIF. On fees, NZAC is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, NZAC has been the lower-risk option at 3.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WBIF or NZAC?

Over the 10-year period, NZAC has performed better with a 12.16% return vs 5.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WBIF or NZAC?

NZAC is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

NZAC has the higher dividend yield at 2.04%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between WBIF and NZAC?

They also come from different issuers: WBI and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for WBIF and 0.12% for NZAC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NZAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 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.