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

Performance

EPRF vs. CWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EPRF achieves a -2.39% return, which is significantly lower than CWB's 23.48% return.


EPRF

1D
-0.41%
1M
-1.18%
YTD
-2.39%
6M
-2.28%
1Y
2.04%
3Y*
2.39%
5Y*
-1.97%
10Y*

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

EPRF vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EPRF
Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF
-2.39%2.69%3.46%9.43%-20.68%1.37%7.38%19.54%-5.58%-0.31%
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%5.19%

Correlation

The correlation between EPRF and CWB is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.45

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

0.49

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

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2017

0.44

The correlation between EPRF and CWB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

EPRF vs. CWB - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EPRF
CWB

Financial Services

55.9%

-

Real Estate

7.6%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

0.1%

Consumer Cyclical

-

0.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

8.8%

Industrials

-

4.6%

Technology

-

6.0%

Utilities

-

89.4%

Financial Services

EPRF
55.9%
CWB

-

Real Estate

EPRF
7.6%
CWB

-

Basic Materials

EPRF

-

CWB

-

Communication Services

EPRF

-

CWB
0.1%

Consumer Cyclical

EPRF

-

CWB
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

EPRF

-

CWB

-

Energy

EPRF

-

CWB

-

Healthcare

EPRF

-

CWB
8.8%

Industrials

EPRF

-

CWB
4.6%

Technology

EPRF

-

CWB
6.0%

Utilities

EPRF

-

CWB
89.4%

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

EPRF vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EPRF
EPRF Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
EPRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EPRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
EPRF Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
EPRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
EPRF Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
Martin Ratio Rank

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
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.

EPRF vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB). 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.


EPRFCWBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.47

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.49

-0.44

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.24

5.14

-4.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.51

18.58

-18.07

EPRF vs. CWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EPRF Sharpe Ratio is 0.27, which is lower than the CWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EPRF and CWB, 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


EPRFCWBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

2.74

-2.47

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.17

0.59

-0.75

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.08

0.92

-0.84

Drawdowns

EPRF vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EPRF drawdown since its inception was -26.82%, smaller than the maximum CWB drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EPRF and CWB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EPRFCWBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-26.82%

-32.06%

+5.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.59%

-7.52%

-1.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.29%

-11.92%

-0.37%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.23%

-28.41%

+3.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.06%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.06%

-1.16%

-9.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.37%

-6.17%

-1.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.01%

2.08%

+1.93%

Volatility

EPRF vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF) is 2.14%, while SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a volatility of 5.33%. This indicates that EPRF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CWB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EPRFCWBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.14%

5.33%

-3.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.46%

11.43%

-5.97%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.55%

14.10%

-6.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.81%

12.95%

-1.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.49%

14.47%

-0.98%

EPRF vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EPRF has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.


Dividends

EPRF vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison

EPRF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.18%, more than CWB's 1.35% 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%
EPRF
Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF
6.18%6.03%6.13%5.71%5.67%4.70%4.92%5.01%5.27%2.59%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


EPRF and CWB have a correlation of 0.45, 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 EPRF (2.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EPRF dropped -26.82% vs CWB's -32.06%.

On 5-year performance, CWB leads with 7.54% vs -1.97% for EPRF. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, EPRF has been the lower-risk option at 2.14%. 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 -1.97%. 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 0.47% for EPRF.

EPRF has the higher dividend yield at 6.18%, compared with 1.35% for CWB.

EPRF tracks S&P U.S. High Quality Preferred Stock Index, while CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for EPRF and 0.40% for CWB.

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 0.27), 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 EPRF and CWB

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