CMBS vs. LQD
CMBS (iShares CMBS ETF) and LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMBS is a Mortgage Backed Securities fund tracking the Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index, while LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CMBS returned 2.06%/yr vs 2.52%/yr for LQD. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMBS charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LQD.
Performance
CMBS vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMBS achieves a 0.14% return, which is significantly lower than LQD's 0.46% return. Over the past 10 years, CMBS has underperformed LQD with an annualized return of 2.06%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively higher 2.52% annualized return.
CMBS
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- -0.05%
- YTD
- 0.14%
- 6M
- 0.28%
- 1Y
- 4.26%
- 3Y*
- 5.15%
- 5Y*
- 0.79%
- 10Y*
- 2.06%
LQD
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 0.72%
- YTD
- 0.46%
- 6M
- -0.03%
- 1Y
- 6.08%
- 3Y*
- 4.95%
- 5Y*
- -0.04%
- 10Y*
- 2.52%
CMBS vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 0.14% | 7.67% | 4.27% | 5.06% | -11.21% | -1.82% | 7.86% | 7.94% | 0.77% | 2.95% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.46% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMBS and LQD is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 17, 2012 | 0.46 |
The correlation between CMBS and LQD shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.58 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
CMBS vs. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
CMBS
LQD
CMBS vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). 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.
| CMBS | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.20 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.76 | 1.83 | -0.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.90 | 5.23 | -0.33 |
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
| CMBS | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.16 | 1.14 | +0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.15 | -0.01 | +0.15 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.36 | 0.29 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.43 | 0.54 | -0.10 |
Drawdowns
CMBS vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMBS drawdown since its inception was -15.87%, smaller than the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMBS and LQD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMBS | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.87% | -24.95% | +9.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.44% | -3.34% | +0.90% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.29% | -8.43% | +5.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.87% | -24.95% | +9.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -15.87% | -24.95% | +9.08% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.77% | -3.72% | +1.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.95% | -3.99% | +1.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.87% | 1.17% | -0.30% |
Volatility
CMBS vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) is 1.11%, while iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a volatility of 1.65%. This indicates that CMBS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMBS | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.11% | 1.65% | -0.54% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.82% | 3.90% | -1.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.71% | 5.36% | -1.65% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.31% | 8.65% | -3.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.77% | 8.68% | -2.91% |
CMBS vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMBS has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
CMBS vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
CMBS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.58%, less than LQD's 4.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 3.58% | 3.45% | 3.31% | 2.97% | 2.65% | 2.46% | 2.83% | 2.74% | 2.70% | 2.50% | 2.29% | 2.31% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.57% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMBS and LQD have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LQD has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to CMBS (1.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMBS dropped -15.87% vs LQD's -24.95%.
On 10-year performance, LQD leads with 2.52% vs 2.06% for CMBS. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CMBS has been the lower-risk option at 1.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, LQD has performed better with a 2.52% return vs 2.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for CMBS.
LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 3.58% for CMBS.
CMBS is categorized as Mortgage Backed Securities, while LQD is Corporate Bonds. CMBS tracks Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index, while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for CMBS and 0.15% for LQD.
CMBS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.16 vs 1.14), 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.
Find the right allocation for CMBS and LQD
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