BWZ vs. FFUT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BWZ (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF) and FFUT (Fidelity Managed Futures ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BWZ is a International Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Global Treasury (1-3 Y) Customized, while FFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Fidelity. BWZ is passively managed, while FFUT is actively managed. Over the past year, BWZ returned -1.90% vs 18.72% for FFUT. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions. BWZ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFUT.

Performance

BWZ vs. FFUT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BWZ achieves a -1.98% return, which is significantly lower than FFUT's 8.83% return.

BWZ

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: -1.98%
• 6M: -1.95%
• 1Y: -1.90%
• 3Y*: 2.03%
• 5Y*: -1.91%
• 10Y*: -0.60%

FFUT

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: -2.69%
• YTD: 8.83%
• 6M: 9.28%
• 1Y: 18.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BWZ vs. FFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BWZ SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF	-1.98%	0.34%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	8.83%	8.58%

Correlation

The correlation between BWZ and FFUT is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025	-0.17

Return for Risk

BWZ vs. FFUT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BWZ

BWZ Risk / Return Rank: 6
BWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
BWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
BWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
BWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
BWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 6

FFUT

FFUT Risk / Return Rank: 64
FFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
FFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

BWZ vs. FFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). 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.

	BWZ	FFUT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.28	1.68	-1.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.35	2.40	-2.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.32	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.37	4.35	-4.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.78	14.55	-15.34

BWZ vs. FFUT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BWZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.28, which is lower than the FFUT Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BWZ and FFUT, 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

BWZ vs. FFUT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BWZ drawdown since its inception was -34.23%, which is greater than FFUT's maximum drawdown of -4.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BWZ and FFUT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BWZ	FFUT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.23%	-4.33%	-29.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.15%	-4.33%	-0.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.46%	-4.33%	-19.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.12%	-0.96%	-15.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.42%	1.29%	+1.13%

Volatility

BWZ vs. FFUT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ) is 1.78%, while Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT) has a volatility of 2.93%. This indicates that BWZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFUT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BWZ	FFUT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.78%	2.93%	-1.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.11%	8.97%	-3.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.86%	11.22%	-4.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.60%	11.02%	-3.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.95%	11.02%	-4.07%

BWZ vs. FFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BWZ has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than FFUT's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

BWZ vs. FFUT - Dividend Comparison

BWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.12%, more than FFUT's 1.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BWZ SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF	2.12%	2.05%	2.47%	1.63%	0.44%	0.60%	0.13%	0.43%	1.10%	0.40%	0.13%	0.06%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	1.92%	2.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BWZ and FFUT in my portfolio?

BWZ and FFUT have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BWZ or FFUT?

FFUT has higher volatility (2.93%) compared to BWZ (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BWZ dropped -34.23% vs FFUT's -4.33%.

Which ETF is better, BWZ or FFUT?

On 1-year performance, FFUT leads with 18.72% vs -1.90% for BWZ. On fees, BWZ is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, BWZ has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BWZ or FFUT?

Over the 1-year period, FFUT has performed better with a 18.72% return vs -1.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BWZ or FFUT?

BWZ is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FFUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BWZ or FFUT?

BWZ has the higher dividend yield at 2.12%, compared with 1.92% for FFUT.

What is the main difference between BWZ and FFUT?

BWZ is categorized as International Government Bonds, while FFUT is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for BWZ and 0.80% for FFUT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFUT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.68 vs -0.28), 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.