FLM vs. CWB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while CWB is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. Both are passively managed. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CWB.

Performance

FLM vs. CWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FLM

• 1D: -4.55%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

FLM vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	-4.55%
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	-1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and CWB is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2026	0.31

Return for Risk

FLM vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

CWB

CWB Risk / Return Rank: 80
CWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
CWB Omega Ratio Rank: 76
CWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CWB Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FLM vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) 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.

	FLM	CWB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.37	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.09	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.42	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.81	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	16.23	—

Drawdowns

FLM vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -4.55%, smaller than the maximum CWB drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and CWB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLM	CWB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.55%	-32.06%	+27.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.52%	—
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.55%	-2.26%	-2.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-6.16%	+3.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.22%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FLM	CWB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.78%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	12.74%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.02%	15.29%	+35.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	51.02%	13.21%	+37.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	51.02%	14.57%	+36.45%

FLM vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLM vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison

FLM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%.

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%
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	0.00%	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

Can I hold both FLM and CWB in my portfolio?

FLM and CWB have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLM or CWB?

On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLM or CWB?

CWB is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.

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

CWB has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.00% for FLM.

What is the main difference between FLM and CWB?

FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while CWB is Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds. FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.40% for CWB.