BNDW vs. BINC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BNDW (Vanguard Total World Bond ETF) and BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BNDW is a Global Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index, while BINC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by iShares. BNDW is passively managed, while BINC is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BNDW returned 3.99%/yr vs 7.02%/yr for BINC. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BNDW charges 0.05%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for BINC.

Performance

BNDW vs. BINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BNDW achieves a 0.42% return, which is significantly lower than BINC's 0.90% return.

BNDW

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 0.44%
• YTD: 0.42%
• 6M: 0.18%
• 1Y: 3.51%
• 3Y*: 3.99%
• 5Y*: 0.22%
• 10Y*: —

BINC

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 0.90%
• 6M: 1.22%
• 1Y: 5.80%
• 3Y*: 7.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BNDW vs. BINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF	0.42%	5.02%	2.42%	4.55%
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	0.90%	7.57%	5.76%	7.08%

Correlation

The correlation between BNDW and BINC is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2023	0.77

The correlation between BNDW and BINC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

BNDW vs. BINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BNDW	BINC
Technology	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	0.0%
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	-0.0%
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-0.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BNDW vs. BINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BNDW

BNDW Risk / Return Rank: 27
BNDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
BNDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
BNDW Omega Ratio Rank: 26
BNDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
BNDW Martin Ratio Rank: 26

BINC

BINC Risk / Return Rank: 67
BINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
BINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
BINC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
BINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BINC Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

BNDW vs. BINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). 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	BINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	2.56	-1.51
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	3.71	-2.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.51	-0.33
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.31	2.17	-0.86
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.70	8.53	-4.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BNDW vs. BINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BNDW Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the BINC Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BNDW and BINC, 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

	BNDW	BINC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.05	2.56	-1.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	2.36	-1.99

Drawdowns

BNDW vs. BINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BNDW drawdown since its inception was -17.22%, which is greater than BINC's maximum drawdown of -2.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNDW and BINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BNDW	BINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.22%	-2.69%	-14.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.70%	-2.69%	-0.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.27%	-2.69%	-1.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.53%	-0.49%	-1.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.98%	-0.36%	-4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.95%	0.68%	+0.27%

Volatility

BNDW vs. BINC - Volatility Comparison

Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) has a higher volatility of 1.31% compared to iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) at 0.75%. This indicates that BNDW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BNDW	BINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.31%	0.75%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.62%	1.84%	+0.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.36%	2.28%	+1.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.21%	3.00%	+2.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.90%	3.00%	+1.90%

BNDW vs. BINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BNDW has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than BINC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

BNDW vs. BINC - Dividend Comparison

BNDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.21%, less than BINC's 5.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	5.86%	5.86%	6.14%	3.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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

Can I hold both BNDW and BINC in my portfolio?

BNDW and BINC have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BNDW or BINC?

BNDW has higher volatility (1.31%) compared to BINC (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BNDW dropped -17.22% vs BINC's -2.69%.

Which ETF is better, BNDW or BINC?

On 3-year performance, BINC leads with 7.02% vs 3.99% for BNDW. On fees, BNDW is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BNDW or BINC?

Over the 3-year period, BINC has performed better with a 7.02% return vs 3.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BNDW or BINC?

BNDW is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BINC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BNDW or BINC?

BINC has the higher dividend yield at 5.86%, compared with 4.21% for BNDW.

What is the main difference between BNDW and BINC?

BNDW is categorized as Global Bonds, while BINC is Multisector Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for BNDW and 0.40% for BINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 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.