FPAG ranks 4th and WBIF 11th of 15 funds in the Global Active Value Category.
FPAG vs WBIF
FPAG −1.21pt a year
0.49%1.70%
FPAG 11.2×the volume
41.5K3.69K
FPAG vs WBIF Performance
+17.1%+17.3%
- FPAG 0.49%, better
- WBIF 1.70%
- FPAG $662M
- WBIF $23M
- FPAG +17.1%
- WBIF +17.3%, better
- FPAG 1.29%, better
- WBIF 0.00%
- FPAG 72
- WBIF 69
- FPAG 41.5K sh, better
- WBIF 3.69K sh
- FPAG $41.86
- WBIF $36.55
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FPAG | WBIF |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A82Higher | F0 |
| Mission | ||
| Risk | C44 | B59Higher |
| Tradability | C44 | B61Higher |
| Holdings | B63 | A76Higher |
| Durability | A73Higher | C41 |
Rank among Global Active Value funds
Same Category. FPAG and WBIF are both graded against the same 15 Global Active Value funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
FPAGB
WBIFD
In short
FPAG FPA's contrarian value desk in ETF form: about 40 out-of-favor global large and mid caps, no sector constraints, 0.49% net of a waiver through January 31, 2027.
WBIF A 2014-vintage active value fund with an unusual escape hatch: its sell discipline can park a big slice of the portfolio in cash. Roughly 30 names, a global hunting ground, and a price tag well above the typical value ETF.
Stated mandate
FPAG The Fund seeks long-term growth of principal and income. It normally invests at least 95% of assets in equities, primarily publicly traded common stocks of mid- and large-cap U.S. and non-U.S. companies, including emerging-market companies.
WBIF The Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation and potential current income while attempting to protect principal in unfavorable markets. It actively invests across domestic and foreign companies of all capitalization sizes and may use tactical investments.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
FPAG vs WBIF Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
FPAG vs WBIF Cost
Overpaying WBIF vs FPAG
$19,249
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FPAG 0.49%
$9,792
WBIF 1.70%
$29,041
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FPAG | WBIF | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $883 | $2,911 | $2,028 |
| 20 | $3,394 | $10,606 | $7,212 |
| 30 | $9,792 | $29,041 | $19,249 |
- 0.49%FPAG, cheaper
- 1.70%WBIF
- Middle half of Global Active Value funds
- Median 0.68%
FPAG 3rd cheapest of 15 funds
WBIF 15th cheapest of 15 funds
FPAG vs WBIF Dividends
- FPAG 1.29%, better
- WBIF 0.00%
- FPAG $0.54
- WBIF None
- FPAG $0.09
- WBIF
- FPAG Sep 15, 2026
- WBIF
- FPAG Sep 22, 2026
- WBIF
- FPAG Quarterly
- WBIF
Distribution history
FPAG vs WBIF Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FPAG 12.4%WBIF 13.3%
- Return per unit of risk
- FPAG 1.01WBIF 0.65
- Worst fall
- FPAG −18.1%WBIF −20.3%
- Market sensitivity
- FPAG 0.97WBIF 1.11
FPAG and WBIF in the news
Popular comparisons
- 0.49% · 0.26%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.70% · 0.26%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.49% · 0.50%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.70% · 0.50%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.49% · 0.33%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.70% · 0.33%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
