CWB vs. ICVT
CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) and ICVT (iShares Convertible Bond ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds - CWB tracks the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond while ICVT tracks the Bloomberg U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWB returned 13.20%/yr vs 14.40%/yr for ICVT. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CWB charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ICVT.
Performance
CWB vs. ICVT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWB achieves a 24.57% return, which is significantly lower than ICVT's 26.89% return. Over the past 10 years, CWB has underperformed ICVT with an annualized return of 13.20%, while ICVT has yielded a comparatively higher 14.40% annualized return.
CWB
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- 4.67%
- YTD
- 24.57%
- 6M
- 22.13%
- 1Y
- 39.20%
- 3Y*
- 19.32%
- 5Y*
- 7.23%
- 10Y*
- 13.20%
ICVT
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 5.09%
- YTD
- 26.89%
- 6M
- 24.71%
- 1Y
- 43.39%
- 3Y*
- 20.83%
- 5Y*
- 7.36%
- 10Y*
- 14.40%
CWB vs. ICVT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 24.57% | 16.61% | 10.06% | 14.49% | -20.81% | 2.18% | 53.39% | 22.39% | -2.00% | 15.69% |
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF | 26.89% | 18.10% | 10.61% | 15.35% | -20.66% | -0.66% | 61.01% | 21.76% | -0.27% | 16.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWB and ICVT is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2015 | 0.86 |
The correlation between CWB and ICVT shifts across timeframes, from 0.86 (all time) to 0.97 (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
CWB vs. ICVT — Risk / Return Rank
CWB
ICVT
CWB vs. ICVT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT). 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 | ICVT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.20 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.50 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.24 | 5.78 | -0.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 17.71 | 19.71 | -2.00 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWB vs. ICVT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, roughly equal to the maximum ICVT drawdown of -33.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and ICVT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWB | ICVT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.06% | -33.25% | +1.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.52% | -7.55% | +0.03% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.92% | -11.22% | -0.70% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.41% | -29.95% | +1.54% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.06% | -33.25% | +1.19% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.29% | 0.00% | -0.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.16% | -9.46% | +3.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.22% | 2.21% | +0.01% |
Volatility
CWB vs. ICVT - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) have volatilities of 6.68% and 6.96%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWB | ICVT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.68% | 6.96% | -0.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.58% | 12.95% | -0.37% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.18% | 15.57% | -0.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.18% | 13.49% | -0.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.58% | 15.61% | -1.03% |
CWB vs. ICVT - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than ICVT's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWB vs. ICVT - Dividend Comparison
CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, more than ICVT's 1.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 1.34% | 1.69% | 1.85% | 1.97% | 2.21% | 1.97% | 2.34% | 3.03% | 6.17% | 4.25% | 4.60% | 7.52% |
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF | 1.28% | 1.73% | 2.19% | 1.85% | 1.93% | 7.70% | 3.98% | 1.86% | 4.82% | 2.56% | 3.06% | 1.57% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, CWB and ICVT move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
ICVT has higher volatility (6.96%) compared to CWB (6.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs ICVT's -33.25%.
On 10-year performance, ICVT leads with 14.40% vs 13.20% for CWB. On fees, ICVT is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CWB has been the lower-risk option at 6.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ICVT has performed better with a 14.40% return vs 13.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ICVT is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.
CWB has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 1.28% for ICVT.
CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while ICVT tracks Bloomberg U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.20% for ICVT.
ICVT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 2.60), 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 ICVT
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