BILS vs. CVSB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BILS (SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF) and CVSB (Calvert Ultra-Short Investment Grade ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. BILS is passively managed, while CVSB is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BILS returned 4.66%/yr vs 5.54%/yr for CVSB. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BILS charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for CVSB.

Performance

BILS vs. CVSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) and Calvert Ultra-Short Investment Grade ETF (CVSB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BILS achieves a 1.40% return, which is significantly lower than CVSB's 1.49% return.

BILS

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: —

CVSB

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 1.49%
• 6M: 2.05%
• 1Y: 4.55%
• 3Y*: 5.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BILS vs. CVSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	1.40%	4.23%	5.17%	4.58%
CVSB Calvert Ultra-Short Investment Grade ETF	1.49%	4.92%	6.23%	5.40%

Correlation

The correlation between BILS and CVSB is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.23

The correlation between BILS and CVSB shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (3 years) to 0.28 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BILS vs. CVSB — Risk / Return Rank

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

BILS

BILS Risk / Return Rank: 100
BILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Martin Ratio Rank: 100

CVSB

CVSB Risk / Return Rank: 98
CVSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CVSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
CVSB Omega Ratio Rank: 98
CVSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
CVSB Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

BILS vs. CVSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) and Calvert Ultra-Short Investment Grade ETF (CVSB). 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.

	BILS	CVSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	16.80	5.20	+11.59
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	100.82	8.98	+91.84
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	42.08	2.41	+39.67
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	129.91	20.15	+109.76
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1,442.41	81.98	+1,360.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BILS vs. CVSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BILS Sharpe Ratio is 16.80, which is higher than the CVSB Sharpe Ratio of 5.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BILS and CVSB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BILS	CVSB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.80	5.20	+11.59
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	10.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	9.79	4.14	+5.65

Drawdowns

BILS vs. CVSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BILS drawdown since its inception was -0.41%, smaller than the maximum CVSB drawdown of -0.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BILS and CVSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BILS	CVSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.41%	-0.63%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.03%	-0.23%	+0.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.04%	-0.63%	+0.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.02%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.04%	-0.05%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.00%	0.06%	-0.06%

Volatility

BILS vs. CVSB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) is 0.06%, while Calvert Ultra-Short Investment Grade ETF (CVSB) has a volatility of 0.16%. This indicates that BILS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CVSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BILS	CVSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.06%	0.16%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.14%	0.54%	-0.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23%	0.88%	-0.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.31%	1.32%	-1.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.30%	1.32%	-1.02%

BILS vs. CVSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BILS has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than CVSB's 0.24% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BILS vs. CVSB - Dividend Comparison

BILS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.81%, less than CVSB's 4.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	3.81%	4.08%	5.01%	4.98%	1.61%
CVSB Calvert Ultra-Short Investment Grade ETF	4.37%	4.72%	5.13%	4.95%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BILS and CVSB in my portfolio?

BILS and CVSB have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BILS or CVSB?

CVSB has higher volatility (0.16%) compared to BILS (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BILS dropped -0.41% vs CVSB's -0.63%.

Which ETF is better, BILS or CVSB?

On 3-year performance, CVSB leads with 5.54% vs 4.66% for BILS. On fees, BILS is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BILS or CVSB?

Over the 3-year period, CVSB has performed better with a 5.54% return vs 4.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BILS or CVSB?

BILS is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for CVSB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BILS or CVSB?

CVSB has the higher dividend yield at 4.37%, compared with 3.81% for BILS.

What is the main difference between BILS and CVSB?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and Calvert. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for BILS and 0.24% for CVSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.80 vs 5.20), 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.