COMB vs. LQDW
COMB (GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF) and LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - COMB is a Commodities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while LQDW is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index. COMB is actively managed, while LQDW is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, COMB returned 11.57%/yr vs 3.70%/yr for LQDW. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. COMB charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for LQDW.
Performance
COMB vs. LQDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, COMB achieves a 14.97% return, which is significantly higher than LQDW's 1.88% return.
COMB
- 1D
- -1.41%
- 1M
- -9.91%
- YTD
- 14.97%
- 6M
- 13.14%
- 1Y
- 22.62%
- 3Y*
- 11.57%
- 5Y*
- 9.61%
- 10Y*
- —
LQDW
- 1D
- 0.18%
- 1M
- 1.36%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.02%
- 1Y
- 6.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.70%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
COMB vs. LQDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMB GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF | 14.97% | 15.12% | 5.24% | -7.75% | -6.75% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 1.88% | 9.05% | 2.60% | 3.99% | -6.78% |
Correlation
The correlation between COMB and LQDW is -0.27, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.05 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2022 | 0.02 |
The correlation between COMB and LQDW shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), 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
COMB vs. LQDW — Risk / Return Rank
COMB
LQDW
COMB vs. LQDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF (COMB) and iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| COMB | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.75 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.36 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.71 | 2.52 | -0.80 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.79 | 9.34 | -2.56 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
COMB vs. LQDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum COMB drawdown since its inception was -33.50%, which is greater than LQDW's maximum drawdown of -9.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COMB and LQDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| COMB | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.50% | -9.20% | -24.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.28% | -2.59% | -10.69% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.28% | -6.74% | -6.54% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.63% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.28% | -0.04% | -13.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.04% | -2.32% | -9.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.36% | 0.70% | +2.66% |
Volatility
COMB vs. LQDW - Volatility Comparison
GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF (COMB) has a higher volatility of 3.69% compared to iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) at 1.00%. This indicates that COMB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQDW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| COMB | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.69% | 1.00% | +2.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.24% | 3.12% | +12.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.34% | 3.62% | +13.72% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.69% | 5.47% | +11.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.14% | 5.47% | +9.67% |
COMB vs. LQDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
COMB has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than LQDW's 0.34% expense ratio.
Dividends
COMB vs. LQDW - Dividend Comparison
COMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.87%, less than LQDW's 12.49% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMB GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF | 7.87% | 9.05% | 2.48% | 6.57% | 30.85% | 15.83% | 0.07% | 1.48% | 0.97% | 0.20% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.49% | 16.02% | 15.74% | 19.28% | 8.85% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
COMB and LQDW have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
COMB has higher volatility (3.69%) compared to LQDW (1.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COMB dropped -33.50% vs LQDW's -9.20%.
On 3-year performance, COMB leads with 11.57% vs 3.70% for LQDW. On fees, COMB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LQDW has been the lower-risk option at 1.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, COMB has performed better with a 11.57% return vs 3.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
COMB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.49%, compared with 7.87% for COMB.
COMB is categorized as Commodities, while LQDW is Corporate Bonds. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for COMB and 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs 1.32), 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 COMB and LQDW
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