CWB vs VTI
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CWB delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CWB | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.40% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $5.8B | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.46% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 327 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +15.63% | +13.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.59% | +20.29% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.91% | +21.42% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.82% | +12.00% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.8% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -32.2% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | State Street Investment Management | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Convertible | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 14, 2009 | May 24, 2001 |
CWB vs VTI Performance
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities ETF (CWB) is a ETF from State Street Investment Management and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CWB returned +22.59% while VTI returned +20.29%. Year to date, CWB is up 15.63% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, CWB compounded at +16.91% per year against +21.42% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +5.82% and +12.00% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.08% annualized vs +7.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 12.8% for CWB. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -32.2% for CWB and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CWB charges 0.40% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $40 vs $3 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CWB currently yields 1.46% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
CWB and VTI share 19 holdings out of 2869 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.8% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CWB or VTI?
CWB has an expense ratio of 0.40% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $37 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CWB or VTI?
Over the past year CWB returned +22.59% vs +20.29% for VTI, so CWB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), CWB annualized +7.98% vs +8.08% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CWB or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 12.8% for CWB. Worst drawdown: CWB -32.2% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both CWB and VTI?
CWB and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CWB and VTI?
CWB and VTI share 19 common holdings with a 1.8% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2869 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CWB or VTI?
CWB yields 1.46% while VTI yields 1.07%, so CWB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.