LSVD vs WBIF
LSV Disciplined Value ETF vs WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF
Which is better, LSVD or WBIF?
LSVD has been ahead.
LSVD has a lower expense ratio. LSVD led over 1Y and the full window. WBIF is less concentrated, with 23.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 32.4%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | LSVD | WBIF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.40%Best | 1.65% |
| AUM | $635M | $23M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.27% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 271 | 138 |
| YTD Return | +18.20%Best | +15.44% |
| 1Y Return | +21.54%Best | +14.64% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.51% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +3.64% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.3% | 12.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.3% | -16.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $14,548Best | $12,739 |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.4% | 23.2%Best |
| Fund Family | LSV Asset Management | WBI Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 17, 2024 | Aug 25, 2014 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 18, 2024 to Nov 11, 2026 (1.9 years).
LSVD vs WBIF growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.9 years both funds cover.
LSVD vs WBIF Performance
LSV Disciplined Value ETF (LSVD) is an ETF from LSV Asset Management and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is an ETF from WBI Investments. Over the past year LSVD returned +21.54% while WBIF returned +14.64%. Year to date, LSVD is up 18.20% versus a gain of 15.44% for WBIF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LSVD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.3% compared with 12.7% for WBIF. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -19.3% for LSVD and -16.4% for WBIF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.63. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LSVD charges 0.40% per year while WBIF charges 1.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $40 vs $165 annually, a gap of $125 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LSVD currently yields 0.27% against 0.00% for WBIF.
Holdings Overlap
6.4% of LSVD's money is in holdings WBIF also owns. 19.4% of WBIF's money is in holdings LSVD also owns.
WBIF and LSVD share little of their money.
12 positions in common, counted across the 134 positions we hold weights for in LSVD and 71 in WBIF, against full books of 271 and 138.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 56 positions for WBIF that do not appear in our book for LSVD (75.5% of the fund), and 121 for LSVD that do not appear in WBIF (93.6%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in LSVD | Weight in WBIF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEGAPegasystems, Inc. | 0.33% | 2.65% | 2.32% |
| HPQHP Inc | 0.41% | 2.54% | 2.13% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp. | 1.14% | 1.78% | 0.64% |
| XOMExxonmobil Holdings Corp Common Stock Usd | 0.58% | 1.60% | 1.02% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.66% | 1.47% | 0.81% |
| NTAPNetapp Inc. | 0.90% | 1.20% | 0.30% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.47% | 1.56% | 1.09% |
| GGenpact Limited Common Stock | 0.39% | 1.56% | 1.17% |
| GLGlobe Life Inc | 0.34% | 1.51% | 1.17% |
| FOXAFox Corp. Class A | 0.54% | 1.18% | 0.64% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of LSVD and WBIF you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, LSVD or WBIF?
LSVD has an expense ratio of 0.40% while WBIF charges 1.65%. LSVD is the cheaper option, by $125 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LSVD or WBIF?
Over the past year LSVD returned +21.54% vs +14.64% for WBIF, so LSVD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), LSVD annualized +21.81% vs +13.59% for WBIF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LSVD or WBIF?
LSVD has been the more volatile fund at 13.3% annualized versus 12.7% for WBIF. Worst drawdown: LSVD -19.3% vs WBIF -16.4%.
Should I hold both LSVD and WBIF?
LSVD and WBIF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.63, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between LSVD and WBIF?
19.4% of WBIF's money is in holdings LSVD also owns. 19.4% of WBIF's is in holdings LSVD also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 134 positions we hold weights for in LSVD and 71 in WBIF.
Which pays a higher dividend, LSVD or WBIF?
LSVD yields 0.27% while WBIF yields 0.00%, so LSVD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is WBIF better than LSVD?
LSVD has a lower expense ratio. LSVD led over 1Y and the full window. WBIF is less concentrated, with 23.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 32.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.