FLM vs. CWB

Last updated Jun 4, 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. Over the past 10 years, FLM returned 8.40%/yr vs 12.92%/yr for CWB. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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

In the year-to-date period, FLM achieves a 19.89% return, which is significantly lower than CWB's 23.48% return. Over the past 10 years, FLM has underperformed CWB with an annualized return of 8.40%, while CWB has yielded a comparatively higher 12.92% annualized return.

FLM

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 19.89%
• 6M: 18.51%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 22.72%
• 5Y*: 10.76%
• 10Y*: 8.40%

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)

FLM vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	19.89%	13.99%	17.94%	19.36%	-9.87%	12.98%	0.51%	12.81%	-21.72%	22.95%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and CWB is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2009	0.62

The correlation between FLM and CWB shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (all time) to 0.75 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLM vs. CWB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLM	CWB
Industrials	37.1%	4.6%
Energy	8.1%	-
Technology	7.9%	6.0%
Basic Materials	7.4%	-
Real Estate	5.7%	-
Communication Services	0.7%	0.1%
Utilities	0.7%	89.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	8.8%

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

FLM Risk / Return Rank: 68
FLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
FLM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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

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.

	FLM	CWB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.74	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	3.63	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.49	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.01	5.14	-1.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.80	18.58	-4.78
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLM vs. CWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLM Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the CWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLM 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FLM	CWB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.74	-0.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	0.59	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.90	-0.45
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.92	-0.54

Drawdowns

FLM vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than CWB's maximum 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	-50.07%	-32.06%	-18.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.19%	-7.52%	+0.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.14%	-11.92%	-7.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.71%	-28.41%	+4.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-50.07%	-32.06%	-18.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-1.16%	+0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-6.17%	-4.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	2.08%	0.00%

Volatility

FLM vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) is 4.27%, while SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a volatility of 5.33%. This indicates that FLM 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.

Volatility by Period

	FLM	CWB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	5.33%	-1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.39%	11.43%	-1.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.45%	14.10%	-0.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	12.95%	+3.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.73%	14.47%	+4.26%

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's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than CWB's 1.35% 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%
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	1.01%	1.19%	1.31%	1.16%	2.10%	1.45%	2.88%	1.84%	1.74%	1.49%	2.01%	1.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLM and CWB in my portfolio?

FLM and CWB have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLM or CWB?

CWB has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to FLM (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLM dropped -50.07% vs CWB's -32.06%.

Which ETF is better, FLM or CWB?

On 10-year performance, CWB leads with 12.92% vs 8.40% for FLM. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, FLM has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLM or CWB?

Over the 10-year period, CWB has performed better with a 12.92% return vs 8.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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 1.35%, compared with 1.01% 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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 2.15), 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.