CWB vs. BIL
CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWB is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWB returned 12.92%/yr vs 2.18%/yr for BIL. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. CWB charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.
Performance
CWB vs. BIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWB achieves a 23.48% return, which is significantly higher than BIL's 1.49% return. Over the past 10 years, CWB has outperformed BIL with an annualized return of 12.92%, while BIL has yielded a comparatively lower 2.18% annualized return.
CWB
- 1D
- -1.16%
- 1M
- 7.03%
- YTD
- 23.48%
- 6M
- 22.61%
- 1Y
- 38.47%
- 3Y*
- 19.67%
- 5Y*
- 7.54%
- 10Y*
- 12.92%
BIL
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 1.49%
- 6M
- 1.77%
- 1Y
- 3.87%
- 3Y*
- 4.64%
- 5Y*
- 3.41%
- 10Y*
- 2.18%
CWB vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 23.48% | 16.61% | 10.06% | 14.49% | -20.81% | 2.18% | 53.39% | 22.39% | -2.00% | 15.69% |
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 1.49% | 4.15% | 5.19% | 4.94% | 1.40% | -0.10% | 0.40% | 2.03% | 1.74% | 0.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWB and BIL is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.08 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.05 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2009 | -0.02 |
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
CWB vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank
CWB
BIL
CWB vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.
| CWB | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -16.97 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -170.53 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 87.91 | -86.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.14 | 355.35 | -350.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.58 | 2,817.77 | -2,799.20 |
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
| CWB | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.74 | 19.71 | -16.97 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 | 13.16 | -12.57 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 | 8.52 | -7.63 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.92 | 2.78 | -1.86 |
Drawdowns
CWB vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and BIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWB | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.06% | -0.78% | -31.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.52% | -0.01% | -7.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.92% | -0.01% | -11.91% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.41% | -0.10% | -28.31% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.06% | -0.21% | -31.85% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.16% | 0.00% | -1.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.17% | -0.26% | -5.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.08% | 0.00% | +2.08% |
Volatility
CWB vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.05%. This indicates that CWB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWB | BIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.33% | 0.05% | +5.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.43% | 0.13% | +11.30% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.10% | 0.20% | +13.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.95% | 0.26% | +12.69% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.47% | 0.26% | +14.21% |
CWB vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWB vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison
CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, less than BIL's 3.86% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 3.86% | 4.13% | 5.03% | 4.92% | 1.35% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 2.05% | 1.66% | 0.68% | 0.07% | 0.00% |
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 1.35% | 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
CWB and BIL have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CWB has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to BIL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs BIL's -0.78%.
On 10-year performance, CWB leads with 12.92% vs 2.18% for BIL. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CWB has performed better with a 12.92% return vs 2.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.
BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.86%, compared with 1.35% for CWB.
CWB is categorized as Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds, while BIL is Government Bonds. CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while BIL tracks Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.14% for BIL.
BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.71 vs 2.74), 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 CWB and BIL
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