PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLOS.L vs. UC81.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L) and UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg US Liquid Corporates 1-5 Year UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC81.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLOS.L achieves a 2.34% return, which is significantly higher than UC81.L's 0.43% return.


FLOS.L

1D
-0.06%
1M
0.33%
6M
2.02%
YTD
2.34%
1Y
4.51%
3Y*
5.40%
5Y*
4.00%
10Y*

UC81.L

1D
0.22%
1M
-0.39%
6M
0.05%
YTD
0.43%
1Y
3.32%
3Y*
4.27%
5Y*
2.63%
10Y*
2.21%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLOS.L
iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
2.34%4.78%6.24%6.00%0.83%0.10%0.18%2.42%-0.45%0.28%
UC81.L
UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg US Liquid Corporates 1-5 Year UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis
0.43%-0.20%6.43%0.38%4.76%0.32%1.51%4.23%6.12%-4.80%

Correlation

The correlation between FLOS.L and UC81.L is 0.00, 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

0.00

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.01

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

-0.03

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2017

-0.06

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

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

UC81.L
UC81.L Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
UC81.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UC81.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
UC81.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
UC81.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
UC81.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
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.

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L) and UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg US Liquid Corporates 1-5 Year UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC81.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.


FLOS.LUC81.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+3.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+6.56

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.98

1.10

+0.88

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

15.59

0.77

+14.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

78.69

1.93

+76.76

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLOS.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.18, which is higher than the UC81.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLOS.L and UC81.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

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLOS.L drawdown since its inception was -14.78%, smaller than the maximum UC81.L drawdown of -36.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLOS.L and UC81.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLOS.LUC81.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.78%

-36.65%

+21.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.29%

-4.29%

+4.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-1.46%

-8.01%

+6.55%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-2.13%

-14.31%

+12.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-14.94%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.11%

-2.62%

+2.51%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.25%

-13.81%

+13.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.06%

1.72%

-1.66%

Volatility

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L) is 0.23%, while UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg US Liquid Corporates 1-5 Year UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC81.L) has a volatility of 1.26%. This indicates that FLOS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UC81.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLOS.LUC81.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.23%

1.26%

-1.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

0.81%

4.31%

-3.50%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.08%

5.79%

-4.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

1.68%

7.77%

-6.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

3.36%

8.41%

-5.05%

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLOS.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than UC81.L's 0.18% 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

FLOS.L vs. UC81.L - Dividend Comparison

FLOS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.68%, which matches UC81.L's 4.67% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLOS.L
iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
4.68%5.02%5.93%5.46%1.50%0.57%1.62%2.95%2.27%0.00%0.00%0.00%
UC81.L
UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg US Liquid Corporates 1-5 Year UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis
4.67%5.59%4.76%3.28%1.37%1.58%2.75%2.90%2.20%2.16%1.86%0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions


FLOS.L and UC81.L have a correlation of 0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLOS.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLOS.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for UC81.L.

FLOS.L is categorized as Ultra Short-Term Bonds, while UC81.L is Corporate Bonds. FLOS.L tracks Bloomberg US Floating Rate Note <5 Years Index, while UC81.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp 1-3 Yr TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for FLOS.L and 0.18% for UC81.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLOS.L and UC81.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