CWB vs. ACVT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) and ACVT (Advent Convertible Bond ETF) are both Convertible Bonds funds. CWB is passively managed, while ACVT is actively managed. Over the past year, CWB returned 23.27% vs 9.04% for ACVT. Their 0.60 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CWB charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ACVT.

Performance

CWB vs. ACVT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and Advent Convertible Bond ETF (ACVT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWB achieves a 15.00% return, which is significantly higher than ACVT's 6.12% return.

CWB

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: -2.42%
• 6M: 9.82%
• YTD: 15.00%
• 1Y: 23.27%
• 3Y*: 14.55%
• 5Y*: 5.59%
• 10Y*: 11.70%
• ALL TIME*: 11.55%

ACVT

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: -0.18%
• 6M: 5.24%
• YTD: 6.12%
• 1Y: 9.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.55%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACVT Advent Convertible Bond ETF	$1.70K	$2.25K	$22.89K
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	$56.06M	$68.05M	$91.74M

CWB vs. ACVT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	15.00%	16.37%
ACVT Advent Convertible Bond ETF	6.12%	8.04%

Correlation

The correlation between CWB and ACVT is 0.59, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 30, 2025	0.60

The correlation between CWB and ACVT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CWB vs. ACVT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CWB

CWB Risk / Return Rank: 55
CWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
CWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
CWB Omega Ratio Rank: 52
CWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
CWB Martin Ratio Rank: 60

ACVT

ACVT Risk / Return Rank: 59
ACVT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
ACVT Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ACVT Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ACVT Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ACVT Martin Ratio Rank: 55

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CWB vs. ACVT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and Advent Convertible Bond ETF (ACVT). 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.

	CWB	ACVT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	1.49	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	2.21	-0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.26	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	1.84	+0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.11	6.54	+0.57

CWB vs. ACVT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWB Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is comparable to the ACVT Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWB and ACVT, 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

CWB vs. ACVT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, which is greater than ACVT's maximum drawdown of -4.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and ACVT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWB	ACVT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.06%	-4.81%	-27.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.08%	-4.81%	-6.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.41%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.95%	-0.29%	-7.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.16%	-0.82%	-5.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.08%	1.35%	+1.73%

Volatility

CWB vs. ACVT - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a higher volatility of 5.90% compared to Advent Convertible Bond ETF (ACVT) at 1.72%. This indicates that CWB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACVT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CWB	ACVT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.90%	1.72%	+4.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.92%	4.82%	+9.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.61%	5.93%	+10.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.46%	5.77%	+7.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.69%	5.77%	+8.92%

CWB vs. ACVT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than ACVT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWB vs. ACVT - Dividend Comparison

CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, less than ACVT's 1.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACVT Advent Convertible Bond ETF	1.53%	1.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	1.33%	1.69%	1.85%	1.97%	2.21%	1.97%	2.34%	3.03%	6.17%	4.25%	4.60%	7.52%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CWB and ACVT in my portfolio?

CWB and ACVT have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CWB or ACVT?

CWB has higher volatility (5.90%) compared to ACVT (1.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs ACVT's -4.81%.

Which ETF is better, CWB or ACVT?

On 1-year performance, CWB leads with 23.27% vs 9.04% for ACVT. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ACVT has been the lower-risk option at 1.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CWB or ACVT?

Over the 1-year period, CWB has performed better with a 23.27% return vs 9.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWB or ACVT?

CWB is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ACVT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CWB or ACVT?

ACVT has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 1.33% for CWB.

What is the main difference between CWB and ACVT?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and Advent. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.65% for ACVT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACVT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 1.32), 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.