CWB vs. SPFF
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 12.98%/yr vs 3.02%/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
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWB achieves a 22.11% return, which is significantly higher than SPFF's 4.37% return. Over the past 10 years, CWB has outperformed SPFF with an annualized return of 12.98%, while SPFF has yielded a comparatively lower 3.02% annualized return.
CWB
- 1D
- -1.97%
- 1M
- 2.60%
- YTD
- 22.11%
- 6M
- 20.22%
- 1Y
- 36.00%
- 3Y*
- 18.53%
- 5Y*
- 6.58%
- 10Y*
- 12.98%
SPFF
- 1D
- -0.84%
- 1M
- 0.81%
- YTD
- 4.37%
- 6M
- 3.21%
- 1Y
- 15.54%
- 3Y*
- 8.72%
- 5Y*
- 1.64%
- 10Y*
- 3.02%
CWB vs. SPFF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 22.11% | 16.61% | 10.06% | 14.49% | -20.81% | 2.18% | 53.39% | 22.39% | -2.00% | 15.69% |
SPFF Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF | 4.37% | 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 0.64, 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 | 0.64 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.60 |
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 19, 2012 | 0.49 |
The correlation between CWB and SPFF shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (all time) to 0.64 (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. SPFF — Risk / Return Rank
CWB
SPFF
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.
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 | SPFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | 1.27 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.81 | 2.06 | +2.75 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.23 | 6.19 | +10.04 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWB | SPFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.26% | -2.57% | +0.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.16% | -4.05% | -2.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.22% | 2.52% | -0.30% |
Volatility
CWB vs. SPFF - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a higher volatility of 6.78% compared to Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF (SPFF) at 3.72%. 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWB | SPFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.78% | 3.72% | +3.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.74% | 7.74% | +5.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.29% | 9.98% | +5.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.21% | 11.02% | +2.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.57% | 13.53% | +1.04% |
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 1.37%, less than SPFF's 6.49% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 1.37% | 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 | 6.49% | 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
CWB and SPFF have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CWB has higher volatility (6.78%) compared to SPFF (3.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWB dropped -32.06% vs SPFF's -35.92%.
On 10-year performance, CWB leads with 12.98% vs 3.02% for SPFF. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, SPFF has been the lower-risk option at 3.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CWB has performed better with a 12.98% return vs 3.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CWB is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for SPFF.
SPFF has the higher dividend yield at 6.49%, compared with 1.37% for CWB.
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.
CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.56), 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 SPFF
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