BSCQ vs. INVG
BSCQ (Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF) and INVG (GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. BSCQ is passively managed, while INVG is actively managed. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BSCQ charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for INVG.
Performance
BSCQ vs. INVG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BSCQ achieves a 1.55% return, which is significantly higher than INVG's 0.68% return.
BSCQ
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.34%
- YTD
- 1.55%
- 6M
- 1.92%
- 1Y
- 4.41%
- 3Y*
- 5.06%
- 5Y*
- 1.47%
- 10Y*
- —
INVG
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- 0.73%
- YTD
- 0.68%
- 6M
- 0.36%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BSCQ vs. INVG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BSCQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF | 1.55% | 2.80% |
INVG GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF | 0.68% | 4.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between BSCQ and INVG is 0.07, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025 | 0.07 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BSCQ vs. INVG — Risk / Return Rank
BSCQ
INVG
BSCQ vs. INVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ) and GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF (INVG). 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.
| BSCQ | INVG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 3.45 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 43.24 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 179.65 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BSCQ | INVG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.06 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 1.23 | -0.63 |
Drawdowns
BSCQ vs. INVG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BSCQ drawdown since its inception was -16.50%, which is greater than INVG's maximum drawdown of -3.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSCQ and INVG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BSCQ | INVG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.50% | -3.15% | -13.35% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.10% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -1.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.02% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.88% | +0.88% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.85% | -0.71% | -2.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.02% | — | — |
Volatility
BSCQ vs. INVG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BSCQ | INVG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.17% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.43% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.63% | 4.42% | -3.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.30% | 4.42% | -1.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.77% | 4.42% | +0.35% |
BSCQ vs. INVG - Expense Ratio Comparison
BSCQ has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than INVG's 0.25% 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
BSCQ vs. INVG - Dividend Comparison
BSCQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.12%, less than INVG's 4.68% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BSCQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF | 4.12% | 4.14% | 4.05% | 3.53% | 2.54% | 1.91% | 2.42% | 2.96% | 3.32% | 2.92% | 0.51% |
INVG GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF | 4.68% | 2.81% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BSCQ and INVG have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BSCQ is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BSCQ is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for INVG.
INVG has the higher dividend yield at 4.68%, compared with 4.12% for BSCQ.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and GMO. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for BSCQ and 0.25% for INVG.
Find the right allocation for BSCQ and INVG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer