BWZ vs. SCHP
BWZ (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF) and SCHP (Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BWZ is a International Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Global Treasury (1-3 Y) Customized, while SCHP is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Index (Series-L). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BWZ returned -0.55%/yr vs 2.44%/yr for SCHP. Their 0.25 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BWZ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SCHP.
Performance
BWZ vs. SCHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BWZ achieves a 0.01% return, which is significantly lower than SCHP's 0.54% return. Over the past 10 years, BWZ has underperformed SCHP with an annualized return of -0.55%, while SCHP has yielded a comparatively higher 2.44% annualized return.
BWZ
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 1.61%
- 6M
- -1.75%
- YTD
- 0.01%
- 1Y
- 0.57%
- 3Y*
- 2.54%
- 5Y*
- -1.46%
- 10Y*
- -0.55%
- ALL TIME*
- -0.16%
SCHP
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- -0.76%
- 6M
- -0.03%
- YTD
- 0.54%
- 1Y
- 1.89%
- 3Y*
- 3.86%
- 5Y*
- 0.30%
- 10Y*
- 2.44%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.72%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $4.01M | $3.45M | $2.62M | |
| $93.70M | $94.28M | $106.00M |
BWZ vs. SCHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BWZ SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF | 0.01% | 10.47% | -5.31% | 2.97% | -10.56% | -6.85% | 6.47% | 0.99% | -3.36% | 10.18% |
SCHP Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF | 0.54% | 6.76% | 1.95% | 3.91% | -12.02% | 5.87% | 10.86% | 8.52% | -1.78% | 3.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between BWZ and SCHP is 0.43, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.43 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.41 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.39 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2010 | 0.25 |
The correlation between BWZ and SCHP shifts across timeframes, from 0.25 (all time) to 0.43 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
BWZ vs. SCHP — Risk / Return Rank
BWZ
SCHP
BWZ vs. SCHP - 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 Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF (SCHP). 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 | SCHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.66 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.05 | 1.13 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.38 | 1.30 | -0.92 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.70 | 3.52 | -2.83 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BWZ vs. SCHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BWZ drawdown since its inception was -34.23%, which is greater than SCHP's maximum drawdown of -14.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BWZ and SCHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BWZ | SCHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.23% | -14.26% | -19.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.15% | -1.93% | -3.22% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.60% | -3.70% | -4.90% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.92% | -14.26% | -7.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.90% | -14.26% | -10.64% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.91% | -1.30% | -20.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.16% | -3.90% | -12.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.78% | 0.71% | +2.07% |
Volatility
BWZ vs. SCHP - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ) has a higher volatility of 2.31% compared to Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF (SCHP) at 0.70%. This indicates that BWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BWZ | SCHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.31% | 0.70% | +1.61% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.17% | 2.45% | +2.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.84% | 3.26% | +3.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.64% | 6.11% | +1.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.94% | 5.58% | +1.36% |
BWZ vs. SCHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
BWZ has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHP's 0.03% expense ratio.
Dividends
BWZ vs. SCHP - Dividend Comparison
BWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, less than SCHP's 4.51% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BWZ SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF | 1.91% | 2.05% | 2.47% | 1.63% | 0.44% | 0.60% | 0.13% | 0.43% | 1.10% | 0.40% | 0.13% | 0.06% |
SCHP Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF | 4.17% | 4.06% | 2.99% | 3.02% | 7.19% | 4.39% | 1.11% | 2.02% | 2.26% | 1.90% | 1.38% | 0.28% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BWZ and SCHP have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BWZ has higher volatility (2.31%) compared to SCHP (0.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BWZ dropped -34.23% vs SCHP's -14.26%.
On 10-year performance, SCHP leads with 2.44% vs -0.55% for BWZ. On fees, SCHP is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, SCHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, SCHP has performed better with a 2.44% return vs -0.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHP is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for BWZ.
SCHP has the higher dividend yield at 4.17%, compared with 1.91% for BWZ.
BWZ is categorized as International Government Bonds, while SCHP is Inflation-Protected Bonds. BWZ tracks Bloomberg Global Treasury (1-3 Y) Customized, while SCHP tracks Bloomberg US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Index (Series-L). They also come from different issuers: State Street and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for BWZ and 0.03% for SCHP.
SCHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.77 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.
Find the right allocation for BWZ and SCHP
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