PGF vs. CWB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PGF (Invesco Financial Preferred ETF) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds - PGF tracks the Wachovia Hybrid & Preferred Securities Financial Index while CWB tracks the Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGF returned 2.29%/yr vs 12.92%/yr for CWB. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PGF charges 0.62%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CWB.

Performance

PGF vs. CWB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Financial Preferred ETF (PGF) 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, PGF achieves a -0.31% return, which is significantly lower than CWB's 23.48% return. Over the past 10 years, PGF has underperformed CWB with an annualized return of 2.29%, while CWB has yielded a comparatively higher 12.92% annualized return.

PGF

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -1.27%
• YTD: -0.31%
• 6M: 0.05%
• 1Y: 4.63%
• 3Y*: 3.91%
• 5Y*: -0.81%
• 10Y*: 2.29%

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)

PGF vs. CWB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PGF Invesco Financial Preferred ETF	-0.31%	3.40%	6.01%	7.73%	-19.22%	2.65%	7.23%	14.55%	-2.82%	10.82%
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 PGF and CWB is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2009	0.44

PGF vs. CWB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PGF	CWB
Financial Services	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	8.8%
Industrials	-	4.6%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	89.4%

Return for Risk

PGF vs. CWB — Risk / Return Rank

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

PGF

PGF Risk / Return Rank: 20
PGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
PGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
PGF Omega Ratio Rank: 19
PGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
PGF Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

PGF vs. CWB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Financial Preferred ETF (PGF) 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.

	PGF	CWB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.74	2.74	-2.00
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.12	3.63	-2.51
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.49	-0.36
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	5.14	-4.15
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.11	18.58	-16.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PGF vs. CWB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGF Sharpe Ratio is 0.74, which is lower than the CWB Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGF 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

	PGF	CWB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74	2.74	-2.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.07	0.59	-0.66
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19	0.90	-0.70
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	0.92	-0.77

Drawdowns

PGF vs. CWB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PGF drawdown since its inception was -75.69%, which is greater than CWB's maximum drawdown of -32.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGF and CWB.

Drawdown Indicators

	PGF	CWB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-75.69%	-32.06%	-43.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.69%	-7.52%	+2.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.87%	-11.92%	+1.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.41%	-28.41%	+5.00%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.92%	-32.06%	+3.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.38%	-1.16%	-4.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.01%	-6.17%	-0.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.20%	2.08%	+0.12%

Volatility

PGF vs. CWB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Financial Preferred ETF (PGF) is 1.48%, while SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) has a volatility of 5.33%. This indicates that PGF 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

	PGF	CWB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.48%	5.33%	-3.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.06%	11.43%	-7.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.28%	14.10%	-7.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.36%	12.95%	-1.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.00%	14.47%	-2.47%

PGF vs. CWB - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGF has a 0.62% expense ratio, which is higher than CWB's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

PGF vs. CWB - Dividend Comparison

PGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.33%, more 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%
PGF Invesco Financial Preferred ETF	6.33%	6.30%	6.24%	6.15%	5.95%	4.68%	4.91%	5.14%	5.73%	5.32%	5.92%	5.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PGF and CWB in my portfolio?

PGF and CWB have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PGF or CWB?

CWB has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to PGF (1.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGF dropped -75.69% vs CWB's -32.06%.

Which ETF is better, PGF or CWB?

On 10-year performance, CWB leads with 12.92% vs 2.29% for PGF. On fees, CWB is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, PGF has been the lower-risk option at 1.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PGF or CWB?

Over the 10-year period, CWB has performed better with a 12.92% return vs 2.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PGF or CWB?

CWB is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.62% for PGF.

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

PGF has the higher dividend yield at 6.33%, compared with 1.35% for CWB.

What is the main difference between PGF and CWB?

PGF tracks Wachovia Hybrid & Preferred Securities Financial Index, while CWB tracks Bloomberg US Convertibles Liquid Bond. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.62% for PGF and 0.40% for CWB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 0.74), 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.