WBIF vs. WRND

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

WBIF (WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF) and WRND (IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF) are both Global Equities funds. WBIF is actively managed, while WRND is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, WBIF returned 7.72%/yr vs 19.01%/yr for WRND. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. WBIF charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for WRND.

Performance

WBIF vs. WRND - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WBIF achieves a 15.50% return, which is significantly higher than WRND's 12.55% return.

WBIF

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 0.25%
• 6M: 12.52%
• YTD: 15.50%
• 1Y: 23.62%
• 3Y*: 7.72%
• 5Y*: 3.56%
• 10Y*: 5.87%
• ALL TIME*: 3.91%

WRND

• 1D: 2.30%
• 1M: -0.30%
• 6M: 7.58%
• YTD: 12.55%
• 1Y: 28.82%
• 3Y*: 19.01%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.73%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	$828.17K	$406.02K	$174.16K
WRND IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF	$60.47K	$31.46K	$21.89K

WBIF vs. WRND - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
WBIF WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF	15.50%	9.16%	3.43%	0.49%	-9.41%
WRND IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF	12.55%	27.72%	13.46%	34.85%	-19.17%

Correlation

The correlation between WBIF and WRND is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2022	0.64

The correlation between WBIF and WRND has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

WBIF vs. WRND - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WBIF	WRND
Financial Services	27.2%	2.9%
Technology	25.6%	51.9%
Industrials	16.2%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	7.0%
Energy	4.4%	-
Healthcare	3.2%	11.9%
Basic Materials	2.8%	1.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	1.5%
Utilities	2.0%	-
Communication Services	1.3%	10.8%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

WBIF vs. WRND — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

WBIF

WBIF Risk / Return Rank: 80
WBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
WBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
WBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 75
WBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
WBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 85

WRND

WRND Risk / Return Rank: 60
WRND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
WRND Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
WRND Omega Ratio Rank: 56
WRND Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
WRND Martin Ratio Rank: 66

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

WBIF vs. WRND - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) and IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF (WRND). 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	WRND	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	1.43	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	2.01	+0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.25	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	2.18	+1.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.98	8.00	+3.98

WBIF vs. WRND - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WBIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the WRND Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WBIF and WRND, 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. WRND - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WBIF drawdown since its inception was -20.29%, smaller than the maximum WRND drawdown of -27.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WBIF and WRND.

Drawdown Indicators

	WBIF	WRND	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.29%	-27.16%	+6.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.60%	-12.43%	+5.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.16%	-18.41%	+1.25%
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	-1.79%	-3.82%	+2.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.64%	-5.90%	-1.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.86%	3.38%	-1.52%

Volatility

WBIF vs. WRND - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is 3.61%, while IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF (WRND) has a volatility of 6.27%. This indicates that WBIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WRND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WBIF	WRND	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.61%	6.27%	-2.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.28%	15.90%	-6.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.70%	18.93%	-6.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.90%	19.02%	-6.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.39%	19.02%	-6.63%

WBIF vs. WRND - Expense Ratio Comparison

WBIF has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than WRND's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

WBIF vs. WRND - Dividend Comparison

WBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than WRND's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
WRND IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF	0.93%	1.29%	1.15%	2.06%	2.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WBIF and WRND in my portfolio?

WBIF and WRND have a correlation of 0.57, 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 WRND?

WRND has higher volatility (6.27%) compared to WBIF (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WBIF dropped -20.29% vs WRND's -27.16%.

Which ETF is better, WBIF or WRND?

On 3-year performance, WRND leads with 19.01% vs 7.72% for WBIF. On fees, WRND is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, WBIF has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WBIF or WRND?

Over the 3-year period, WRND has performed better with a 19.01% return vs 7.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WBIF or WRND?

WRND is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for WBIF.

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

WRND has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.06% for WBIF.

What is the main difference between WBIF and WRND?

They also come from different issuers: WBI and IndexIQ. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for WBIF and 0.18% for WRND.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.43), 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.