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