BNDW vs. BGRN
BNDW (Vanguard Total World Bond ETF) and BGRN (iShares USD Green Bond ETF) are both Global Bonds funds - BNDW tracks the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index while BGRN tracks the Bloomberg MSCI USD Green Bond Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BNDW returned 0.22%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for BGRN. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BNDW charges 0.05%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for BGRN.
Performance
BNDW vs. BGRN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BNDW achieves a 0.42% return, which is significantly lower than BGRN's 0.64% return.
BNDW
- 1D
- -0.26%
- 1M
- 0.44%
- YTD
- 0.42%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- 1Y
- 3.51%
- 3Y*
- 3.99%
- 5Y*
- 0.22%
- 10Y*
- —
BGRN
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 0.64%
- 6M
- 0.83%
- 1Y
- 5.42%
- 3Y*
- 4.82%
- 5Y*
- 0.63%
- 10Y*
- —
BNDW vs. BGRN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF | 0.42% | 5.02% | 2.42% | 7.18% | -12.88% | -2.10% | 6.22% | 8.37% | 1.60% |
BGRN iShares USD Green Bond ETF | 0.64% | 7.27% | 2.77% | 6.50% | -13.06% | -2.80% | 6.86% | 9.70% | 1.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between BNDW and BGRN is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 28, 2018 | 0.87 |
The correlation between BNDW and BGRN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BNDW vs. BGRN — Risk / Return Rank
BNDW
BGRN
BNDW vs. BGRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) and iShares USD Green Bond ETF (BGRN). 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.
| BNDW | BGRN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.05 | 1.84 | -0.79 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.50 | 2.82 | -1.32 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.34 | -0.15 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.31 | 2.33 | -1.02 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.70 | 7.86 | -4.16 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BNDW | BGRN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.05 | 1.84 | -0.79 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 | 0.12 | -0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.37 | 0.46 | -0.08 |
Drawdowns
BNDW vs. BGRN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BNDW drawdown since its inception was -17.22%, smaller than the maximum BGRN drawdown of -19.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNDW and BGRN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BNDW | BGRN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.22% | -19.16% | +1.94% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.70% | -2.23% | -0.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.27% | -4.55% | +0.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.93% | -18.73% | +1.80% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.53% | -0.63% | -0.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.98% | -5.79% | +0.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.95% | 0.66% | +0.29% |
Volatility
BNDW vs. BGRN - Volatility Comparison
Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) has a higher volatility of 1.31% compared to iShares USD Green Bond ETF (BGRN) at 1.06%. This indicates that BNDW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BNDW | BGRN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.31% | 1.06% | +0.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.62% | 2.26% | +0.36% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.36% | 2.97% | +0.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.21% | 5.46% | -0.25% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.90% | 5.00% | -0.10% |
BNDW vs. BGRN - Expense Ratio Comparison
BNDW has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than BGRN's 0.20% 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
BNDW vs. BGRN - Dividend Comparison
BNDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.21%, less than BGRN's 4.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGRN iShares USD Green Bond ETF | 4.28% | 4.21% | 4.07% | 3.52% | 2.66% | 0.78% | 1.82% | 3.66% | 0.21% |
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF | 4.21% | 4.12% | 3.90% | 3.73% | 2.02% | 2.58% | 1.56% | 3.05% | 1.66% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, BNDW and BGRN move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
BNDW has higher volatility (1.31%) compared to BGRN (1.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BNDW dropped -17.22% vs BGRN's -19.16%.
On 5-year performance, BGRN leads with 0.63% vs 0.22% for BNDW. On fees, BNDW is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, BGRN has been the lower-risk option at 1.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, BGRN has performed better with a 0.63% return vs 0.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BNDW is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for BGRN.
BGRN has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 4.21% for BNDW.
BNDW tracks Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index, while BGRN tracks Bloomberg MSCI USD Green Bond Select Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for BNDW and 0.20% for BGRN.
BGRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.05), 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.
Find the right allocation for BNDW and BGRN
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer