AGRH vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AGRH (iShares Interest Rate Hedged U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds from iShares. AGRH is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, AGRH returned 6.30% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AGRH charges 0.13%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

AGRH vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Interest Rate Hedged U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGRH) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGRH achieves a 1.78% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.63% return.

AGRH

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 6M: 2.44%
• 1Y: 6.30%
• 3Y*: 5.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGRH vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AGRH iShares Interest Rate Hedged U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF	1.78%	6.00%	2.71%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.63%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between AGRH and CSHP is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	0.07

AGRH vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AGRH	CSHP
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AGRH vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AGRH

AGRH Risk / Return Rank: 97
AGRH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
AGRH Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
AGRH Omega Ratio Rank: 98
AGRH Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
AGRH Martin Ratio Rank: 97

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AGRH vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Interest Rate Hedged U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGRH) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	AGRH	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.41	11.91	-7.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.67	31.26	-23.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.12	7.44	-5.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.44	65.71	-56.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	44.94	432.16	-387.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AGRH vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGRH Sharpe Ratio is 4.41, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGRH and CSHP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AGRH	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.41	11.91	-7.49
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.13	10.75	-7.62

Drawdowns

AGRH vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGRH drawdown since its inception was -1.73%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGRH and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGRH	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.73%	-0.08%	-1.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.67%	-0.06%	-0.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.73%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.07%	0.00%	-0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.16%	-0.00%	-0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.14%	0.01%	+0.13%

Volatility

AGRH vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

iShares Interest Rate Hedged U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGRH) has a higher volatility of 0.43% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that AGRH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AGRH	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.43%	0.07%	+0.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.00%	0.24%	+0.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.44%	0.33%	+1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.78%	0.40%	+1.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.78%	0.40%	+1.38%

AGRH vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGRH has a 0.13% expense ratio, which is lower than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

AGRH vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

AGRH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.18%, more than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
AGRH iShares Interest Rate Hedged U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF	4.18%	4.63%	5.17%	4.69%	1.24%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AGRH and CSHP in my portfolio?

AGRH and CSHP have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AGRH or CSHP?

AGRH has higher volatility (0.43%) compared to CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGRH dropped -1.73% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, AGRH or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, AGRH leads with 6.30% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, AGRH is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGRH or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, AGRH has performed better with a 6.30% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGRH or CSHP?

AGRH is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CSHP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AGRH or CSHP?

AGRH has the higher dividend yield at 4.18%, compared with 3.92% for CSHP.

What is the main difference between AGRH and CSHP?

Their fees differ too: 0.13% for AGRH and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.91 vs 4.41), 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.