CWB vs. EVPF
CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) and EVPF (Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds. CWB is passively managed, while EVPF is actively managed. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWB charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for EVPF.
Performance
CWB vs. EVPF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
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%
EVPF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CWB vs. EVPF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 18.09% |
EVPF Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF | 1.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWB and EVPF is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2026 | 0.51 |
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. EVPF — Risk / Return Rank
CWB
EVPF
CWB vs. EVPF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF (EVPF). 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 | EVPF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.14 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.58 | — | — |
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 | EVPF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.74 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.92 | 1.13 | -0.20 |
Drawdowns
CWB vs. EVPF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, which is greater than EVPF's maximum drawdown of -2.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and EVPF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWB | EVPF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.06% | -2.36% | -29.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.52% | — | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.16% | -0.17% | -0.99% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.17% | -0.52% | -5.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.08% | — | — |
Volatility
CWB vs. EVPF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWB | EVPF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.33% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.43% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.10% | 4.31% | +9.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.95% | 4.31% | +8.64% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.47% | 4.31% | +10.16% |
CWB vs. EVPF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than EVPF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWB vs. EVPF - Dividend Comparison
CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, more than EVPF's 1.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
EVPF Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF | 1.08% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CWB and EVPF have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EVPF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EVPF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.
CWB has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 1.08% for EVPF.
They also come from different issuers: State Street and Eaton Vance. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.39% for EVPF.
Find the right allocation for CWB and EVPF
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