VCRM vs. BNDW
VCRM (Vanguard Core Tax-Exempt Bond ETF) and BNDW (Vanguard Total World Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - VCRM is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P Broad AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, while BNDW is a Global Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, VCRM returned 6.32% vs 1.88% for BNDW. Their 0.67 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. VCRM charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for BNDW.
Performance
VCRM vs. BNDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, VCRM achieves a 1.45% return, which is significantly higher than BNDW's 0.50% return.
VCRM
- 1D
- 0.29%
- 1M
- -1.30%
- 6M
- 0.59%
- YTD
- 1.45%
- 1Y
- 6.32%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.46%
BNDW
- 1D
- 0.33%
- 1M
- -0.39%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- YTD
- 0.50%
- 1Y
- 1.88%
- 3Y*
- 4.20%
- 5Y*
- -0.14%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 1.80%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.80M | $6.17M | $6.89M | |
| $18.72M | $17.51M | $16.43M |
VCRM vs. BNDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
VCRM Vanguard Core Tax-Exempt Bond ETF | 1.45% | 4.91% | -0.45% |
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF | 0.50% | 5.02% | 0.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between VCRM and BNDW is 0.64, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 21, 2024 | 0.67 |
The correlation between VCRM and BNDW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
VCRM vs. BNDW — Risk / Return Rank
VCRM
BNDW
VCRM vs. BNDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Core Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (VCRM) and Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW). 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.
| VCRM | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.57 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 1.10 | +0.36 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.33 | 0.70 | +1.63 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.06 | 1.68 | +6.38 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
VCRM vs. BNDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum VCRM drawdown since its inception was -4.12%, smaller than the maximum BNDW drawdown of -17.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VCRM and BNDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| VCRM | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.12% | -17.22% | +13.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.72% | -2.70% | -0.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -3.57% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -16.74% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.30% | -1.46% | +0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.07% | -4.90% | +3.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.79% | 1.12% | -0.33% |
Volatility
VCRM vs. BNDW - Volatility Comparison
Vanguard Core Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (VCRM) and Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) have volatilities of 1.09% and 1.10%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| VCRM | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.09% | 1.10% | -0.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.41% | 2.86% | -0.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.99% | 3.37% | -0.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.80% | 5.23% | -1.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.80% | 4.88% | -1.08% |
VCRM vs. BNDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
VCRM has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is higher than BNDW's 0.05% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
VCRM vs. BNDW - Dividend Comparison
VCRM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.72%, less than BNDW's 4.27% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF | 4.27% | 4.12% | 3.90% | 3.73% | 2.02% | 2.58% | 1.56% | 3.05% | 1.66% |
VCRM Vanguard Core Tax-Exempt Bond ETF | 3.72% | 3.42% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
VCRM and BNDW have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BNDW has higher volatility (1.10%) compared to VCRM (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, VCRM dropped -4.12% vs BNDW's -17.22%.
On 1-year performance, VCRM leads with 6.32% vs 1.88% for BNDW. On fees, BNDW is cheaper at 0.05% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, VCRM has performed better with a 6.32% return vs 1.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BNDW is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for VCRM.
BNDW has the higher dividend yield at 4.27%, compared with 3.72% for VCRM.
VCRM is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BNDW is Global Bonds. VCRM tracks S&P Broad AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, while BNDW tracks Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for VCRM and 0.05% for BNDW.
VCRM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 0.56), 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.
Find the right allocation for VCRM and BNDW
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer