CWB vs. SPFF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) and SPFF (Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds - CWB tracks the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond while SPFF tracks the S&P Enhanced Yield North American Preferred Stock Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWB returned 12.92%/yr vs 3.13%/yr for SPFF. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CWB charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for SPFF.

Performance

CWB vs. SPFF - 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 SuperIncome Preferred ETF (SPFF). 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 SPFF's 6.91% return. Over the past 10 years, CWB has outperformed SPFF with an annualized return of 12.92%, while SPFF has yielded a comparatively lower 3.13% 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%

SPFF

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 3.90%
• YTD: 6.91%
• 6M: 8.28%
• 1Y: 18.49%
• 3Y*: 8.98%
• 5Y*: 2.16%
• 10Y*: 3.13%

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

CWB vs. SPFF - 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%
SPFF Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF	6.91%	7.52%	8.62%	3.00%	-14.29%	5.15%	6.91%	13.04%	-2.55%	1.80%

Correlation

The correlation between CWB and SPFF is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 20, 2012	0.49

The correlation between CWB and SPFF shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (all time) to 0.63 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CWB vs. SPFF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CWB	SPFF
Utilities	89.4%	14.2%
Healthcare	8.8%	3.2%
Technology	6.0%	18.3%
Industrials	4.6%	1.8%
Consumer Cyclical	0.6%	3.0%
Communication Services	0.1%	2.0%
Basic Materials	-	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	54.4%
Real Estate	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

CWB vs. SPFF — 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

SPFF

SPFF Risk / Return Rank: 53
SPFF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
SPFF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
SPFF Omega Ratio Rank: 54
SPFF Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
SPFF Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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. SPFF - 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 SuperIncome Preferred ETF (SPFF). 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	SPFF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	1.96	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	2.79	+0.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.34	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.14	2.45	+2.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.58	7.46	+11.12
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. SPFF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWB Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the SPFF Sharpe Ratio of 1.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWB and SPFF, 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	SPFF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	1.96	+0.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	0.20	+0.39
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90	0.23	+0.66
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	0.30	+0.62

Drawdowns

CWB vs. SPFF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWB drawdown since its inception was -32.06%, smaller than the maximum SPFF drawdown of -35.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWB and SPFF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWB	SPFF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.06%	-35.92%	+3.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.52%	-7.58%	+0.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.92%	-12.51%	+0.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.41%	-22.88%	-5.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.06%	-35.92%	+3.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.16%	-0.20%	-0.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.17%	-4.06%	-2.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	2.49%	-0.41%

Volatility

CWB vs. SPFF - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF (SPFF) at 2.97%. This indicates that CWB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SPFF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CWB	SPFF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	2.97%	+2.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.43%	7.29%	+4.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.10%	9.53%	+4.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.95%	10.93%	+2.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.47%	13.51%	+0.96%

CWB vs. SPFF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWB has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than SPFF's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWB vs. SPFF - Dividend Comparison

CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, less than SPFF's 6.34% 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%
SPFF Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF	6.34%	6.47%	6.39%	6.64%	7.15%	5.78%	5.75%	5.97%	7.60%	7.24%	7.04%	7.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CWB and SPFF in my portfolio?

CWB and SPFF have a correlation of 0.63, 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 SPFF?

CWB has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to SPFF (2.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs SPFF's -35.92%.

Which ETF is better, CWB or SPFF?

On 10-year performance, CWB leads with 12.92% vs 3.13% for SPFF. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, SPFF has been the lower-risk option at 2.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CWB or SPFF?

Over the 10-year period, CWB has performed better with a 12.92% return vs 3.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWB or SPFF?

CWB is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for SPFF.

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

SPFF has the higher dividend yield at 6.34%, compared with 1.35% for CWB.

What is the main difference between CWB and SPFF?

CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond, while SPFF tracks S&P Enhanced Yield North American Preferred Stock Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CWB and 0.58% for SPFF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 1.96), 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.