WBIL vs. NZAC
WBIL (WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF) and NZAC (SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF) are both Global Equities funds. WBIL is actively managed, while NZAC is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, WBIL returned 6.93%/yr vs 12.52%/yr for NZAC. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. WBIL charges 1.23%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for NZAC.
Performance
WBIL vs. NZAC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, WBIL achieves a 12.59% return, which is significantly higher than NZAC's 5.55% return. Over the past 10 years, WBIL has underperformed NZAC with an annualized return of 6.93%, while NZAC has yielded a comparatively higher 12.52% annualized return.
WBIL
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.88%
- YTD
- 12.59%
- 6M
- 10.68%
- 1Y
- 23.27%
- 3Y*
- 11.37%
- 5Y*
- 5.75%
- 10Y*
- 6.93%
NZAC
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -2.57%
- YTD
- 5.55%
- 6M
- 4.58%
- 1Y
- 18.73%
- 3Y*
- 17.73%
- 5Y*
- 9.07%
- 10Y*
- 12.52%
WBIL vs. NZAC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WBIL WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF | 12.59% | -0.47% | 13.29% | 11.79% | -9.60% | 18.67% | -2.19% | 11.65% | -9.67% | 19.31% |
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF | 5.55% | 20.55% | 16.67% | 23.22% | -19.77% | 18.35% | 17.21% | 28.24% | -9.80% | 22.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between WBIL and NZAC is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 26, 2014 | 0.68 |
The correlation between WBIL and NZAC shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (all time) to 0.82 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
WBIL vs. NZAC — Risk / Return Rank
WBIL
NZAC
WBIL vs. NZAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF (WBIL) 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.
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 | NZAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.14 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.25 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.37 | 1.86 | +0.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.81 | 7.75 | +2.06 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
WBIL vs. NZAC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum WBIL drawdown since its inception was -25.30%, smaller than the maximum NZAC drawdown of -33.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WBIL and NZAC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| WBIL | NZAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.30% | -33.72% | +8.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.85% | -10.10% | +0.25% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.30% | -16.19% | -9.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.30% | -28.31% | +3.01% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -25.30% | -33.72% | +8.42% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.06% | -3.81% | -0.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.96% | -5.31% | -1.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.38% | 2.42% | -0.04% |
Volatility
WBIL vs. NZAC - Volatility Comparison
WBI BullBear Quality 3000 ETF (WBIL) has a higher volatility of 6.91% compared to SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) at 5.31%. This indicates that WBIL'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| WBIL | NZAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.91% | 5.31% | +1.60% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.03% | 11.31% | +0.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.36% | 13.62% | +1.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.89% | 16.94% | -3.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.78% | 17.13% | -4.35% |
WBIL vs. NZAC - Expense Ratio Comparison
WBIL has a 1.23% expense ratio, which is higher than NZAC's 0.12% expense ratio.
Dividends
WBIL vs. NZAC - Dividend Comparison
WBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than NZAC's 2.10% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF | 2.10% | 1.90% | 1.88% | 1.65% | 1.81% | 1.62% | 1.59% | 2.17% | 2.53% | 2.20% | 2.00% | 2.40% |
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
WBIL and NZAC have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
WBIL has higher volatility (6.91%) compared to NZAC (5.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WBIL dropped -25.30% vs NZAC's -33.72%.
On 10-year performance, NZAC leads with 12.52% vs 6.93% for WBIL. On fees, NZAC is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, NZAC has been the lower-risk option at 5.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, NZAC has performed better with a 12.52% return vs 6.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NZAC is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 1.23% for WBIL.
NZAC has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 0.04% for WBIL.
They also come from different issuers: WBI and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.23% for WBIL and 0.12% for NZAC.
WBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.52 vs 1.38), 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.
Find the right allocation for WBIL and NZAC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer