ICVT vs CWB ETF Comparison: AI Score, Valuation, Performance and Upside
ICVT (iShares Convertible Bond ETF) and CWB (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities ETF) are both U.S. convertible bond ETFs providing hybrid bond-equity exposure — ICVT tracks the broader ICE BofA US Convertible Index at a lower 0.20% expense ratio, while CWB tracks the more liquid Bloomberg US Convertible Liquid Bond Index at 0.40% expense ratio with the largest convertible ETF AUM and institutional adoption.
ICVT vs CWB is lower-cost, broader convertible bond market access (iShares' 0.20% expense ratio on ICE BofA US Convertible Index including smaller issues, monthly income, and equity upside participation) versus most liquid convertible bond ETF with maximum institutional credibility (SPDR's 0.40% expense ratio on Bloomberg Liquid Convertible Index, largest convertible ETF AUM and tightest trading spreads — paying twice the expense ratio primarily for institutional trading liquidity).
CWB holds the edge across 3 of 5 key metrics in this comparison. CWB has delivered stronger 1-year price return (+5.64% vs +5.45% for ICVT).
- Want lower-cost convertible bond exposure at 0.20% expense ratio with broad market representation including smaller convertible issues across the full ICE BofA US Convertible Index
- Value the hybrid equity-bond nature of convertibles for portfolio positioning that participates in equity upside while maintaining some bond floor protection in market downturns
- Use convertibles as a tactical or strategic allocation in technology and growth company exposure with income component unavailable from pure equity positions
- Need maximum convertible bond ETF trading liquidity for institutional-scale positions requiring tight bid-ask spreads and deep secondary market with minimal market impact
- Value CWB's established position as the most widely adopted convertible bond ETF for institutional asset allocation and the SPDR brand's credibility in institutional fixed income markets
- Prioritize the most liquid convertible bond universe (Bloomberg Liquid Bond Index) to minimize NAV tracking errors and liquidity mismatch risk during convertible market stress
| Metric | ICVT | CWB |
|---|---|---|
| ETF scorei | 26.7 | 26.6 |
| Latest closei | $107.46 | $97.09 |
| 1M returni | -3.64% | -3.13% |
| 3M returni | -5.10% | -3.95% |
| 6M returni | -2.71% | -2.27% |
| 1Y returni | +5.45% | +5.64% |
The ETF score weights long-term returns and risk-adjusted performance most heavily, but still rewards low expense ratios, larger fund size, and broader diversification — so it can favor low-cost, broad, mega-cap funds over smaller thematic or actively-managed funds even when the latter have delivered stronger returns.
How much would $10,000 be worth today if invested at the start of each period, with all dividends reinvested?
| Period | ICVT | CWB |
|---|---|---|
| 1Y ago | $10.7K (+7.0%) started 2025-10-15 | $10.74K (+7.4%) started 2025-10-15 |
| 5Y ago | $14.56K (+45.6%) started 2021-10-15 | $13.67K (+36.7%) started 2021-10-15 |
| 10Y ago | $44.51K (+345.1%) started 2016-10-17 | $39.84K (+298.4%) started 2016-10-17 |
Hypothetical — past performance does not guarantee future results.
| Metric | ICVT | CWB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratioi | 0.20% | 0.40% |
| Total assets (AUM)i | $8.1B | $5.55B |
| Dividend yieldi | 1.42% | 1.56% |
| Trailing P/Ei | N/A | N/A |
| Betai | 0.67 | 0.73 |
| 52-week change | 5.45% | 5.64% |
| Metric | ICVT | CWB |
|---|---|---|
| 1Y returni | +5.45% | +5.64% |
| 6M returni | -2.71% | -2.27% |
| 3M returni | -5.10% | -3.95% |
| 1M returni | -3.64% | -3.13% |
| 1Y Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 0.15 |
| Betai | 0.67 | 0.73 |
| Dividend yieldi | 1.42% | 1.56% |
| 5Y CAGR | +4.22% | +4.23% |
Over the past year, ICVT and CWB have moved strongly in the same direction (correlation of 0.99), based on daily returns.
Lower drawdown and smaller single-period drops generally indicate a smoother ride, though they do not guarantee lower future risk.
| Period | Metric | ICVT | CWB |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Y | Growthi | +5.45% | +5.64% |
| CAGRi | +5.45% | +5.64% | |
| Volatilityi | 18.19% | 17.54% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.14 | 0.15 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.19 | 0.20 | |
| Max drawdowni | 13.86% | 12.66% | |
| Current drawdowni | 13.13% | 11.86% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 3.62% | 3.49% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 4.82% | 4.55% | |
| Max daily dropi | 4.19% | 4.04% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 5.86% | 5.57% | |
| 5Y | Growthi | +22.98% | +22.98% |
| CAGRi | +4.22% | +4.23% | |
| Volatilityi | 14.01% | 13.69% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.05 | 0.04 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.06 | 0.06 | |
| Max drawdowni | 29.95% | 28.41% | |
| Current drawdowni | 13.13% | 11.86% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 13.17% | 12.26% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 16.08% | 15.03% | |
| Max daily dropi | 4.50% | 4.19% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 10.83% | 9.97% | |
| 10Y | Growthi | +212.05% | +185.58% |
| CAGRi | +12.06% | +11.07% | |
| Volatilityi | 15.87% | 14.82% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.52 | 0.48 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.71 | 0.65 | |
| Max drawdowni | 33.25% | 32.06% | |
| Current drawdowni | 13.13% | 11.86% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 9.74% | 8.34% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 14.03% | 12.12% | |
| Max daily dropi | 10.18% | 9.13% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 19.53% | 18.75% |
| Category | ICVT | CWB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund name | iShares Convertible Bond ETF | State Street SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities ETF |
| Type | ETF | ETF |
| Expense ratioi | 0.20% | 0.40% |
| Total assets (AUM)i | $8.1B | $5.55B |
| Dividend yieldi | 1.42% | 1.56% |
- Equity upside participation with bond floor protection — convertible bonds participate in stock price appreciation when the underlying equity rises (the conversion option gains value) while the bond floor (the value of the bond if you ignore the conversion option) provides downside support below the stock price
- Technology and growth sector concentration reflects where convertibles are most common — technology companies, particularly those that are unprofitable or early-stage, frequently issue convertible bonds because they can offer lower coupon rates in exchange for equity upside; this sector bias benefits from technology sector growth
- Monthly income from coupon payments — convertible bonds pay regular coupons (typically 0.5-2.5%), providing income while holding the equity option
- Largest and most established convertible bond ETF with superior trading liquidity — CWB's large AUM and long history create tight bid-ask spreads and deep secondary market liquidity for institutional and retail investors needing large-block convertible exposure
- Focus on most liquid convertible issues reduces liquidity risk — CWB's Bloomberg Liquid Bond Index requires minimum outstanding face value, ensuring the fund holds the most tradeable convertibles; this reduces NAV tracking errors in stressed markets
- SPDR brand and institutional adoption — CWB is widely used by institutional asset allocators as the primary convertible bond exposure vehicle; broad institutional adoption creates a virtuous cycle of liquidity
- Convertible bonds underperform in sideways or declining markets — when the underlying stock doesn't rise above the conversion price, the convertible bond provides only the coupon income (which is below comparable non-convertible bonds); investors who don't need equity upside pay an implied cost for the conversion option that may not be realized
- Rising interest rates hurt bond floor value — as rates rise, the underlying bond component of convertibles loses value, reducing the bond floor protection; in a rising rate environment, convertibles provide less downside protection than expected
- Credit risk from below-investment-grade issuers — many convertible issuers are growth companies without investment-grade credit ratings; if the issuer's business deteriorates (without the stock rising to trigger conversion), the convertible bond holder faces credit risk similar to high yield bonds
- Higher expense ratio (0.40%) vs ICVT (0.20%) — CWB charges twice ICVT's expense ratio; long-term investors pay significantly more in absolute fee terms; without superior performance, CWB's higher cost is a disadvantage
- Stricter liquidity criteria may exclude smaller, potentially higher-yielding convertibles — ICVT's broader index may capture more of the full convertible market vs. CWB's liquid-only focus
- Both funds face identical convertible market risks — the fundamental risks of convertible bonds (credit risk, interest rate sensitivity, equity option value decay) are shared by ICVT and CWB; the difference is primarily cost and liquidity
Compare more than two at a time
This page is a fixed writeup on ICVT and CWB. Our comparison engine is the interactive version: load up to five tickers, switch timeframes, and get the correlation, drawdown, and overlap analysis that a static page can't show.
Add three more names beside ICVT and CWB, mixing stocks and ETFs in the same table — useful when the real question is which of a whole peer group to own.
AI score, forward P/E, analyst target upside, operating margin, and revenue growth are scored head-to-head, with a running tally of which ticker leads on how many metrics.
Volatility, Sharpe and Sortino ratios, maximum, current, and average drawdown, Ulcer Index, and worst single-day and single-week drops across every timeframe.
Pairwise daily-return correlation for every combination, so you can see whether two holdings actually diversify each other or just move together.
A scatter plot of forward P/E against return on equity, plus drawdown and 30-day rolling volatility charts, to separate what is cheap from what is merely beaten down.
For ETFs, a top-holdings comparison that exposes hidden overlap between funds. Every comparison exports to CSV for your own spreadsheet work.
Two comparisons a week are free without an account. A 14-day trial removes the limit and adds AI price forecasts, stock rankings, saved watchlists, and the intrinsic value calculator — no credit card required.
Want deeper AI forecasts?
This comparison page is public and free forever. Subscribers can unlock saved watchlists, full AI rankings, detailed forecasts, and interactive analysis tools.