EVPF vs. CWB
EVPF (Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EVPF is a Preferred Stock fund actively managed by Eaton Vance, while CWB is a Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. EVPF is actively managed, while CWB is passively managed. Their 0.46 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EVPF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CWB.
Performance
EVPF vs. CWB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
EVPF
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- -0.49%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
CWB
- 1D
- 0.35%
- 1M
- -2.42%
- 6M
- 9.82%
- YTD
- 15.00%
- 1Y
- 23.27%
- 3Y*
- 14.55%
- 5Y*
- 5.59%
- 10Y*
- 11.70%
- ALL TIME*
- 11.55%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $56.06M | $68.05M | $91.74M | |
| $219.09K | $314.39K | $349.89K |
EVPF vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
EVPF Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF | 1.26% |
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 8.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between EVPF and CWB is 0.46, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 5, 2026 | 0.46 |
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
EVPF vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank
EVPF
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CWB
EVPF vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF (EVPF) 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.
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.
| EVPF | CWB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.23 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.98 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.11 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EVPF vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EVPF drawdown since its inception was -2.36%, smaller than the maximum CWB drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVPF and CWB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EVPF | CWB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.36% | -32.06% | +29.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -11.08% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -11.92% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -28.41% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.06% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.74% | -7.95% | +7.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.45% | -6.16% | +5.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.08% | — |
Volatility
EVPF vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EVPF | CWB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.90% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 13.92% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.77% | 16.61% | -12.84% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.77% | 13.46% | -9.69% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.77% | 14.69% | -10.92% |
EVPF vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison
EVPF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
EVPF vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison
EVPF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, more than CWB's 1.45% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF | 1.33% | 1.69% | 1.85% | 1.97% | 2.21% | 1.97% | 2.34% | 3.03% | 6.17% | 4.25% | 4.60% | 7.52% |
EVPF Eaton Vance Preferred Securities and Income ETF | 2.10% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EVPF and CWB have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EVPF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EVPF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.
EVPF has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 1.33% for CWB.
EVPF is categorized as Preferred Stock, while CWB is Convertible Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Eaton Vance and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for EVPF and 0.40% for CWB.
Find the right allocation for EVPF 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