OAKM vs WBIF
Oakmark US Large Cap ETF vs WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF
Which is better, OAKM or WBIF?
Each has led over a different period.
OAKM has a lower expense ratio. OAKM led over the full window, WBIF over 1Y.
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 | OAKM | WBIF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.59%Best | 1.65% |
| AUM | $1.1B | $23M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.65% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 41 | 152 |
| YTD Return | +6.05% | +14.87%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.80% | +15.37%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.35% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +4.01% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.2%Best | 12.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -15.2%Best | -16.6% |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $12,344Best | $11,769 |
| Fund Family | Oakmark Funds | WBI Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 3, 2024 | Aug 25, 2014 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 3, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.9 years).
OAKM 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.
OAKM vs WBIF Performance
Oakmark US Large Cap ETF (OAKM) is an ETF from Oakmark Funds and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is an ETF from WBI Investments. Over the past year OAKM returned +14.80% while WBIF returned +15.37%. Year to date, OAKM is up 6.05% versus a gain of 14.87% for WBIF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
WBIF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.4% compared with 12.2% for OAKM. 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 -15.2% for OAKM and -16.6% 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 0.68. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
OAKM charges 0.59% per year while WBIF charges 1.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $59 vs $165 annually, a gap of $106 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, OAKM currently yields 0.65% against 0.00% for WBIF.
Holdings Overlap
At least 6.3% of OAKM's money is in holdings WBIF also owns.
Stated as a floor: for WBIF, our book for it covers 83.6% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
OAKM and WBIF share little of their money.
3 positions in common, counted across the 39 positions we hold weights for in OAKM and 62 in WBIF, against full books of 41 and 152.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of OAKM 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, OAKM or WBIF?
OAKM has an expense ratio of 0.59% while WBIF charges 1.65%. OAKM is the cheaper option, by $106 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, OAKM or WBIF?
Over the past year OAKM returned +14.80% vs +15.37% for WBIF, so WBIF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), OAKM annualized +11.72% vs +8.95% for WBIF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, OAKM or WBIF?
WBIF has been the more volatile fund at 12.4% annualized versus 12.2% for OAKM. Worst drawdown: OAKM -15.2% vs WBIF -16.6%.
Should I hold both OAKM and WBIF?
OAKM and WBIF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, 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 OAKM and WBIF?
At least 6.3% of OAKM's money is in holdings WBIF also owns. Our book for WBIF is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 3 positions in common, counted across the 39 positions we hold weights for in OAKM and 62 in WBIF.
Which pays a higher dividend, OAKM or WBIF?
OAKM yields 0.65% while WBIF yields 0.00%, so OAKM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is WBIF better than OAKM?
OAKM has a lower expense ratio. OAKM led over the full window, WBIF over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.