PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CWB vs. PFFD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CWB vs. PFFD - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWB achieves a 23.48% return, which is significantly higher than PFFD's 2.29% 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%

PFFD

1D
-0.58%
1M
0.16%
YTD
2.29%
6M
2.67%
1Y
7.65%
3Y*
5.10%
5Y*
-0.16%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWB vs. PFFD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%0.82%
PFFD
Global X U.S. Preferred ETF
2.29%3.22%7.07%6.85%-20.20%5.07%8.90%17.43%-3.94%0.85%

Correlation

The correlation between CWB and PFFD is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.57

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.53

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2017

0.51

The correlation between CWB and PFFD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

CWB vs. PFFD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CWB
PFFD

Utilities

89.4%
15.3%

Healthcare

8.8%
0.8%

Technology

6.0%
6.3%

Industrials

4.6%
5.4%

Consumer Cyclical

0.6%
1.6%

Communication Services

0.1%
4.4%

Basic Materials

-

3.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

59.1%

Real Estate

-

4.0%

Utilities

CWB
89.4%
PFFD
15.3%

Healthcare

CWB
8.8%
PFFD
0.8%

Technology

CWB
6.0%
PFFD
6.3%

Industrials

CWB
4.6%
PFFD
5.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CWB
0.6%
PFFD
1.6%

Communication Services

CWB
0.1%
PFFD
4.4%

Basic Materials

CWB

-

PFFD
3.0%

Consumer Defensive

CWB

-

PFFD

-

Energy

CWB

-

PFFD

-

Financial Services

CWB

-

PFFD
59.1%

Real Estate

CWB

-

PFFD
4.0%

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. PFFD — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWB
CWB Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
CWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWB Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
CWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWB Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank

PFFD
PFFD Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
PFFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PFFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
PFFD Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
PFFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
PFFD Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
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. PFFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) and Global X U.S. Preferred ETF (PFFD). 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.


CWBPFFDDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.74

1.07

+1.67

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.63

1.55

+2.08

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.19

+0.30

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

5.14

1.29

+3.85

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

18.58

3.81

+14.76

CWB vs. PFFD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWB Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the PFFD Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWB and PFFD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CWBPFFDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.74

1.07

+1.67

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.59

-0.01

+0.60

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

0.21

+0.71

Drawdowns

CWB vs. PFFD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, roughly equal to the maximum PFFD drawdown of -30.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and PFFD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWBPFFDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.06%

-30.93%

-1.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.52%

-5.97%

-1.55%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.92%

-10.84%

-1.08%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.41%

-24.45%

-3.96%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.06%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.16%

-3.68%

+2.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.17%

-6.59%

+0.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.08%

2.01%

+0.07%

Volatility

CWB vs. PFFD - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to Global X U.S. Preferred ETF (PFFD) at 2.09%. This indicates that CWB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWBPFFDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.33%

2.09%

+3.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.43%

5.32%

+6.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.10%

7.19%

+6.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.95%

10.98%

+1.97%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.47%

12.76%

+1.71%

CWB vs. PFFD - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than PFFD's 0.23% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWB vs. PFFD - Dividend Comparison

CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, less than PFFD's 6.37% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
PFFD
Global X U.S. Preferred ETF
6.37%6.37%6.42%6.49%6.63%5.09%5.17%5.48%6.21%1.94%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWB and PFFD have a correlation of 0.57, 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 PFFD (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs PFFD's -30.93%.

On 5-year performance, CWB leads with 7.54% vs -0.16% for PFFD. On fees, PFFD is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, PFFD has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, CWB has performed better with a 7.54% return vs -0.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

PFFD is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.

PFFD has the higher dividend yield at 6.37%, compared with 1.35% for CWB.

CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while PFFD tracks ICE BofAML Diversified Core U.S. Preferred Securities Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.23% for PFFD.

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 1.07), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWB and PFFD

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