WBIL vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

WBIL (WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. WBIL is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, WBIL returned 6.67%/yr vs 6.99%/yr for ACWV. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. WBIL charges 1.23%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

WBIL vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF (WBIL) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WBIL achieves a 13.20% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with WBIL having a 6.67% annualized return and ACWV not far ahead at 6.99%.

WBIL

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: -1.47%
• 6M: 10.77%
• YTD: 13.20%
• 1Y: 22.96%
• 3Y*: 9.77%
• 5Y*: 5.91%
• 10Y*: 6.67%

ACWV

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 0.81%
• 6M: 2.67%
• YTD: 3.64%
• 1Y: 6.12%
• 3Y*: 9.83%
• 5Y*: 5.48%
• 10Y*: 6.99%

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

WBIL vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
WBIL WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF	13.20%	-0.47%	13.29%	11.79%	-9.60%	18.67%	-2.19%	11.65%	-9.67%	19.31%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.64%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between WBIL and ACWV is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 27, 2014	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between WBIL and ACWV has dropped to 0.39 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

WBIL vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WBIL	ACWV
Financial Services	25.6%	13.2%
Technology	17.8%	25.8%
Consumer Cyclical	14.5%	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	13.6%	9.8%
Industrials	9.9%	8.1%
Healthcare	7.0%	13.0%
Basic Materials	4.5%	1.5%
Communication Services	3.3%	11.9%
Real Estate	2.8%	0.6%
Energy	2.5%	3.7%
Utilities	1.3%	7.3%

Return for Risk

WBIL vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

WBIL

WBIL Risk / Return Rank: 56
WBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
WBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
WBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 51
WBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
WBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 66

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 25
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

WBIL vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF (WBIL) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	WBIL	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	0.77	+0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	1.14	+0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.14	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.34	0.97	+1.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.33	2.75	+6.58

WBIL vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WBIL Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WBIL and ACWV, 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

WBIL vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WBIL drawdown since its inception was -25.30%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WBIL and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	WBIL	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.30%	-28.82%	+3.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.85%	-6.37%	-3.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.30%	-7.56%	-17.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.30%	-18.14%	-7.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.30%	-28.82%	+3.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.54%	-1.70%	-1.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.94%	-3.11%	-3.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	2.23%	+0.24%

Volatility

WBIL vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF (WBIL) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.29%. This indicates that WBIL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WBIL	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.93%	3.29%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.26%	6.28%	+5.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.49%	8.05%	+7.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.91%	10.28%	+3.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.81%	12.29%	+0.52%

WBIL vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

WBIL has a 1.23% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

WBIL vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

WBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than ACWV's 1.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.94%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
WBIL WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.07%	0.29%	1.03%	2.02%	0.19%	0.73%	0.75%	0.83%	0.58%	0.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WBIL and ACWV in my portfolio?

WBIL and ACWV have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WBIL or ACWV?

WBIL has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to ACWV (3.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WBIL dropped -25.30% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, WBIL or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, ACWV leads with 6.99% vs 6.67% for WBIL. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WBIL or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 6.99% return vs 6.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WBIL or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.23% for WBIL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, WBIL or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.04% for WBIL.

What is the main difference between WBIL and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: WBI and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.23% for WBIL and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 0.77), 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.