CWB vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - CWB is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CWB returned 7.54%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CWB charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

CWB vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWB achieves a 23.48% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 3.00% 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%

GLDM

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: -1.62%
• YTD: 3.00%
• 6M: 5.60%
• 1Y: 32.42%
• 3Y*: 31.49%
• 5Y*: 18.49%
• 10Y*: —

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

CWB vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	23.48%	16.61%	10.06%	14.49%	-20.81%	2.18%	53.39%	22.39%	-7.97%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.84%

Correlation

The correlation between CWB and GLDM is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018	0.12

CWB vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CWB	GLDM
Utilities	89.4%	-
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Technology	6.0%	-
Industrials	4.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.6%	-
Communication Services	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CWB vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWB

CWB Risk / Return Rank: 83
CWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CWB Omega Ratio Rank: 80
CWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CWB Martin Ratio Rank: 86

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 32
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

CWB vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	1.24	+1.51
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	1.63	+1.99
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.25	+0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.14	1.70	+3.44
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.58	4.23	+14.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CWB vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWB Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWB and GLDM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CWB	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	1.24	+1.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	1.04	-0.45
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	1.02	-0.10

Drawdowns

CWB vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWB	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.06%	-21.63%	-10.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.52%	-19.14%	+11.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.92%	-19.14%	+7.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.41%	-20.92%	-7.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.16%	-17.65%	+16.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.17%	-6.22%	+0.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	7.69%	-5.61%

Volatility

CWB vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) have volatilities of 5.33% and 5.47%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CWB	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	5.47%	-0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.43%	22.99%	-11.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.10%	26.39%	-12.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.95%	17.91%	-4.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.47%	16.85%	-2.38%

CWB vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWB vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

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%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	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

Can I hold both CWB and GLDM in my portfolio?

CWB and GLDM have a correlation of 0.22, 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 GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to CWB (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, CWB or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs 7.54% for CWB. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, CWB has been the lower-risk option at 5.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CWB or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 7.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWB or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.

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

CWB has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between CWB and GLDM?

CWB is categorized as Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds, while GLDM is Gold. CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 1.24), 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.