BGT vs. CWB

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BGT (BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) are both funds - BGT is a Bank Loan fund managed by BlackRock, while CWB is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. Over the past 10 years, BGT returned 6.41%/yr vs 13.20%/yr for CWB. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BGT charges 1.74%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CWB.

Performance

BGT vs. CWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGT achieves a 0.26% return, which is significantly lower than CWB's 24.57% return. Over the past 10 years, BGT has underperformed CWB with an annualized return of 6.41%, while CWB has yielded a comparatively higher 13.20% annualized return.

BGT

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -0.73%
• YTD: 0.26%
• 6M: 0.35%
• 1Y: -1.61%
• 3Y*: 10.24%
• 5Y*: 6.54%
• 10Y*: 6.41%

CWB

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 4.67%
• YTD: 24.57%
• 6M: 22.13%
• 1Y: 39.20%
• 3Y*: 19.32%
• 5Y*: 7.23%
• 10Y*: 13.20%

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

BGT vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust	0.26%	-0.84%	16.12%	26.29%	-16.57%	25.89%	-0.81%	18.97%	-11.95%	3.91%
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	24.57%	16.61%	10.06%	14.49%	-20.81%	2.18%	53.39%	22.39%	-2.00%	15.69%

Correlation

The correlation between BGT and CWB is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2009	0.28

Return for Risk

BGT vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGT

BGT Risk / Return Rank: 2
BGT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Martin Ratio Rank: 2

CWB

CWB Risk / Return Rank: 84
CWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
CWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
CWB Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CWB Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

BGT vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB). 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.

	BGT	CWB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.16	2.60	-2.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.16	3.37	-3.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.46	-0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.15	5.24	-5.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.31	17.71	-18.03

BGT vs. CWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGT Sharpe Ratio is -0.16, which is lower than the CWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGT and CWB, 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

BGT vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGT drawdown since its inception was -58.06%, which is greater than CWB's maximum drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGT and CWB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGT	CWB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.06%	-32.06%	-26.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.06%	-7.52%	-3.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.91%	-11.92%	-3.99%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.19%	-28.41%	+5.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.90%	-32.06%	-9.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.85%	-0.29%	-5.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.11%	-6.16%	-1.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.14%	2.22%	+2.92%

Volatility

BGT vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) is 1.46%, while SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a volatility of 6.68%. This indicates that BGT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CWB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGT	CWB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.46%	6.68%	-5.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.02%	12.58%	-5.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.95%	15.18%	-5.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.56%	13.18%	+0.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.34%	14.58%	+0.76%

BGT vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGT has a 1.74% expense ratio, which is higher than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGT vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison

BGT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.57%, more than CWB's 1.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust	13.57%	12.74%	11.22%	10.36%	6.87%	5.55%	7.58%	6.33%	6.64%	5.03%	5.03%	6.04%
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	1.34%	1.69%	1.85%	1.97%	2.21%	1.97%	2.34%	3.03%	6.17%	4.25%	4.60%	7.52%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGT and CWB in my portfolio?

BGT and CWB have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BGT or CWB?

CWB has higher volatility (6.68%) compared to BGT (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGT dropped -58.06% vs CWB's -32.06%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs -0.16), 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.