BSJT vs. SCYB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BSJT (Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) and SCYB (Schwab High Yield Bond ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds - BSJT tracks the Invesco BulletShares High Yield Corporate Bond 2029 Index while SCYB tracks the ICE BofA US Cash Pay High Yield Constrained Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, BSJT returned 6.57% vs 6.99% for SCYB. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BSJT charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SCYB.

Performance

BSJT vs. SCYB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJT) and Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BSJT achieves a 1.21% return, which is significantly lower than SCYB's 1.55% return.

BSJT

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 1.21%
• 6M: 1.62%
• 1Y: 6.57%
• 3Y*: 8.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SCYB

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.55%
• 6M: 1.87%
• 1Y: 6.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BSJT vs. SCYB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BSJT Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF	1.21%	7.63%	8.01%	8.10%
SCYB Schwab High Yield Bond ETF	1.55%	8.33%	8.15%	6.74%

Correlation

The correlation between BSJT and SCYB is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2023	0.81

The correlation between BSJT and SCYB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

BSJT vs. SCYB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BSJT	SCYB
Consumer Cyclical	9.0%	10.6%
Technology	7.2%	4.5%
Energy	6.7%	5.8%
Industrials	6.3%	8.7%
Communication Services	3.3%	8.9%
Real Estate	3.2%	4.2%
Financial Services	2.9%	4.9%
Basic Materials	2.8%	3.5%
Utilities	1.9%	2.0%
Healthcare	1.6%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	2.5%

Return for Risk

BSJT vs. SCYB — Risk / Return Rank

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

BSJT

BSJT Risk / Return Rank: 56
BSJT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
BSJT Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
BSJT Omega Ratio Rank: 53
BSJT Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
BSJT Martin Ratio Rank: 63

SCYB

SCYB Risk / Return Rank: 59
SCYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
SCYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
SCYB Omega Ratio Rank: 59
SCYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
SCYB Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

BSJT vs. SCYB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJT) and Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB). 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.

	BSJT	SCYB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.88	-0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	2.81	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.37	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	2.87	-0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.40	12.87	-1.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BSJT vs. SCYB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BSJT Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the SCYB Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BSJT and SCYB, 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

	BSJT	SCYB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	1.88	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	1.68	-1.36

Drawdowns

BSJT vs. SCYB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BSJT drawdown since its inception was -19.62%, which is greater than SCYB's maximum drawdown of -4.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSJT and SCYB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BSJT	SCYB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.62%	-4.92%	-14.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.47%	-2.44%	-0.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.59%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.14%	-0.33%	+0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.45%	-0.52%	-4.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	0.54%	+0.04%

Volatility

BSJT vs. SCYB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJT) is 0.97%, while Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB) has a volatility of 1.07%. This indicates that BSJT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCYB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BSJT	SCYB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.97%	1.07%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.62%	2.93%	-0.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.69%	3.76%	-0.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.21%	5.13%	+3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.21%	5.13%	+3.08%

BSJT vs. SCYB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BSJT has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than SCYB's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

BSJT vs. SCYB - Dividend Comparison

BSJT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.76%, less than SCYB's 6.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BSJT Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF	6.76%	6.77%	6.65%	6.42%	5.45%	1.20%
SCYB Schwab High Yield Bond ETF	6.94%	6.99%	7.06%	3.36%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BSJT and SCYB in my portfolio?

BSJT and SCYB have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BSJT or SCYB?

SCYB has higher volatility (1.07%) compared to BSJT (0.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSJT dropped -19.62% vs SCYB's -4.92%.

Which ETF is better, BSJT or SCYB?

On 1-year performance, SCYB leads with 6.99% vs 6.57% for BSJT. On fees, SCYB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BSJT or SCYB?

Over the 1-year period, SCYB has performed better with a 6.99% return vs 6.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BSJT or SCYB?

SCYB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for BSJT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BSJT or SCYB?

SCYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.94%, compared with 6.76% for BSJT.

What is the main difference between BSJT and SCYB?

BSJT tracks Invesco BulletShares High Yield Corporate Bond 2029 Index, while SCYB tracks ICE BofA US Cash Pay High Yield Constrained Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for BSJT and 0.03% for SCYB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.79), 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.