ICVT vs. CWB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICVT (iShares Convertible Bond ETF) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds - ICVT tracks the Barclays U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index while CWB tracks the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICVT returned 13.99%/yr vs 12.92%/yr for CWB. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ICVT charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CWB.

Performance

ICVT vs. CWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) 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, ICVT achieves a 25.28% return, which is significantly higher than CWB's 23.48% return. Over the past 10 years, ICVT has outperformed CWB with an annualized return of 13.99%, while CWB has yielded a comparatively lower 12.92% annualized return.

ICVT

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: 7.16%
• YTD: 25.28%
• 6M: 24.31%
• 1Y: 42.20%
• 3Y*: 21.04%
• 5Y*: 7.79%
• 10Y*: 13.99%

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)

ICVT vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF	25.28%	18.10%	10.61%	15.35%	-20.66%	-0.66%	61.01%	21.76%	-0.27%	16.38%
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 ICVT and CWB is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2015	0.86

The correlation between ICVT and CWB shifts across timeframes, from 0.86 (all time) to 0.97 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICVT vs. CWB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICVT	CWB
Technology	55.2%	6.0%
Healthcare	44.8%	8.8%
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	0.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	4.6%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	89.4%

Return for Risk

ICVT vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICVT

ICVT Risk / Return Rank: 87
ICVT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
ICVT Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
ICVT Omega Ratio Rank: 84
ICVT Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
ICVT Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

ICVT vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) 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.

	ICVT	CWB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.95	2.74	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.84	3.63	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.49	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.62	5.14	+0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.48	18.58	+1.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICVT vs. CWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICVT Sharpe Ratio is 2.95, which is comparable to the CWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICVT 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

	ICVT	CWB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.95	2.74	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	0.59	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.91	0.90	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	0.92	-0.14

Drawdowns

ICVT vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICVT drawdown since its inception was -33.25%, roughly equal to the maximum CWB drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICVT and CWB.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICVT	CWB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.25%	-32.06%	-1.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.55%	-7.52%	-0.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.22%	-11.92%	+0.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.95%	-28.41%	-1.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.25%	-32.06%	-1.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.97%	-1.16%	+0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.50%	-6.17%	-3.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	2.08%	-0.01%

Volatility

ICVT vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison

iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) have volatilities of 5.53% and 5.33%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICVT	CWB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.53%	5.33%	+0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.69%	11.43%	+0.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.36%	14.10%	+0.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.23%	12.95%	+0.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.50%	14.47%	+1.03%

ICVT vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICVT has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICVT vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison

ICVT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%, 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%
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF	1.30%	1.73%	2.19%	1.85%	1.93%	7.70%	3.98%	1.86%	4.82%	2.56%	3.06%	1.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICVT and CWB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, ICVT and CWB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ICVT or CWB?

ICVT has higher volatility (5.53%) compared to CWB (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICVT dropped -33.25% vs CWB's -32.06%.

Which ETF is better, ICVT or CWB?

On 10-year performance, ICVT leads with 13.99% vs 12.92% for CWB. On fees, ICVT is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CWB has been the lower-risk option at 5.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICVT or CWB?

Over the 10-year period, ICVT has performed better with a 13.99% return vs 12.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICVT or CWB?

ICVT is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for CWB.

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

CWB has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 1.30% for ICVT.

What is the main difference between ICVT and CWB?

ICVT tracks Barclays U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index, while CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ICVT and 0.40% for CWB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICVT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.95 vs 2.74), 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.