MSTZ vs. CWB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX, while CWB is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. MSTZ is actively managed, while CWB is passively managed. Over the past year, MSTZ returned 94.24% vs 38.47% for CWB. At a correlation of -0.58, they often move in opposite directions. MSTZ charges 1.05%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CWB.

Performance

MSTZ vs. CWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) 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, MSTZ achieves a -46.88% return, which is significantly lower than CWB's 23.48% return.

MSTZ

• 1D: 14.02%
• 1M: 86.49%
• YTD: -46.88%
• 6M: -23.06%
• 1Y: 94.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

MSTZ vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-46.88%	-38.95%	-94.26%
CWB SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF	23.48%	16.61%	4.98%

Correlation

The correlation between MSTZ and CWB is -0.55, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2024	-0.58

The correlation between MSTZ and CWB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.58 to -0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MSTZ vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 26
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 34
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

MSTZ vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) 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.

	MSTZ	CWB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.68	2.74	-2.07
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	3.63	-1.88
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.49	-0.26
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.12	5.14	-4.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.35	18.58	-16.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MSTZ vs. CWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSTZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the CWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSTZ 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

	MSTZ	CWB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68	2.74	-2.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.59	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.90	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.53	0.92	-1.45

Drawdowns

MSTZ vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSTZ drawdown since its inception was -99.36%, which is greater than CWB's maximum drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSTZ and CWB.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSTZ	CWB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.36%	-32.06%	-67.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-84.89%	-7.52%	-77.37%
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	-98.14%	-1.16%	-96.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-94.39%	-6.17%	-88.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	40.30%	2.08%	+38.22%

Volatility

MSTZ vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison

T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a higher volatility of 37.49% compared to SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) at 5.33%. This indicates that MSTZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CWB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSTZ	CWB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	37.49%	5.33%	+32.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	125.82%	11.43%	+114.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	140.34%	14.10%	+126.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	170.37%	12.95%	+157.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	170.37%	14.47%	+155.90%

MSTZ vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSTZ has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is higher than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSTZ vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison

MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%.

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%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target 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 MSTZ and CWB in my portfolio?

MSTZ and CWB have a correlation of -0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MSTZ or CWB?

MSTZ has higher volatility (37.49%) compared to CWB (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSTZ dropped -99.36% vs CWB's -32.06%.

Which ETF is better, MSTZ or CWB?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 94.24% vs 38.47% for CWB. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% 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, MSTZ or CWB?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 94.24% return vs 38.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSTZ or CWB?

CWB is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

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

CWB has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between MSTZ and CWB?

MSTZ is categorized as Inverse Equities, while CWB is Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds. They also come from different issuers: REX and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.05% for MSTZ and 0.40% for CWB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 0.68), 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.