Screener
BWZ vs ICSH
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF vs iShares Ultra Short Duration Bond Active ETF
Key differences
- ICSH costs 0.27% less per year.
- ICSH is significantly larger than BWZ — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BWZ follows a index tracking strategy; ICSH uses active selection.
- Over the last 3 years, ICSH has delivered higher annualized returns.
Side-by-side comparison
| BWZ | ICSH | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.35% | 0.08% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $324M | $7.3B |
| Since | 2009 | 2013 |
| Dividend yield | 2.02% | 4.41% |
| Asset class | fixed income | fixed income |
| Region | — | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +0.5% | +4.4% |
| CAGR 3Y | +2.2% | +5.2% |
| CAGR 5Y | -2.0% | +3.7% |
| Sharpe 3Y | -0.14 | 3.35 |
| Volatility 1Y | 7.03% | 0.41% |
| Max drawdown | -24.89% | -3.94% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BWZ and ICSH
Explore further