PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLOA.L vs. ERND.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLOA.L) and iShares $ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (ERND.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLOA.L achieves a 2.49% return, which is significantly higher than ERND.L's 2.00% return.


FLOA.L

1D
0.00%
1M
0.30%
6M
2.17%
YTD
2.49%
1Y
4.77%
3Y*
5.58%
5Y*
4.34%
10Y*

ERND.L

1D
-0.02%
1M
0.30%
6M
1.83%
YTD
2.00%
1Y
4.19%
3Y*
5.09%
5Y*
3.83%
10Y*
2.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
FLOA.L
iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
2.49%4.89%6.42%6.65%1.35%0.42%0.86%4.17%1.01%
ERND.L
iShares $ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
2.00%4.84%5.55%5.09%2.03%0.00%1.21%3.03%1.90%

Correlation

The correlation between FLOA.L and ERND.L 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 (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.02

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.03

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2018

0.04

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

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLOA.L
FLOA.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
FLOA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLOA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLOA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
FLOA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLOA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank

ERND.L
ERND.L Risk / Return Rank: 9999
Overall Rank
ERND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ERND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
ERND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
ERND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
ERND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLOA.L) and iShares $ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (ERND.L). 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.


FLOA.LERND.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.92

2.31

-0.40

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

10.31

20.61

-10.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

42.95

101.10

-58.15

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLOA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.90, which is lower than the ERND.L Sharpe Ratio of 5.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLOA.L and ERND.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLOA.L drawdown since its inception was -14.96%, which is greater than ERND.L's maximum drawdown of -7.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLOA.L and ERND.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLOA.LERND.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.96%

-7.48%

-7.48%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.46%

-0.20%

-0.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-1.77%

-0.64%

-1.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-2.53%

-1.06%

-1.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-7.48%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.15%

-0.02%

-0.13%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.22%

-0.08%

-0.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.11%

0.04%

+0.07%

Volatility

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLOA.L) has a higher volatility of 0.44% compared to iShares $ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (ERND.L) at 0.21%. This indicates that FLOA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ERND.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLOA.LERND.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.44%

0.21%

+0.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.33%

0.66%

+0.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.64%

0.79%

+0.85%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.11%

1.26%

+0.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.27%

2.08%

+2.19%

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLOA.L has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is higher than ERND.L's 0.09% 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

FLOA.L vs. ERND.L - Dividend Comparison

FLOA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ERND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.31%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ERND.L
iShares $ Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
4.31%4.70%5.54%5.00%1.57%0.49%1.55%2.71%2.19%1.39%0.99%0.72%
FLOA.L
iShares USD Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


FLOA.L and ERND.L 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.

On fees, ERND.L is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ERND.L is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.10% for FLOA.L.

FLOA.L is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while ERND.L is Ultrashort Bond. FLOA.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD, while ERND.L tracks Markit iBoxx USD Liquid Investment Grade Ultrashort Index (USD). Their fees differ too: 0.10% for FLOA.L and 0.09% for ERND.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLOA.L and ERND.L

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