FLRN vs. IGCB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLRN (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) and IGCB (TCW Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - FLRN tracks the Bloomberg US Floating Rate Notes (<5 Y) while IGCB tracks the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FLRN returned 4.88% vs 5.37% for IGCB. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLRN charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IGCB.

Performance

FLRN vs. IGCB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN) and TCW Corporate Bond ETF (IGCB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLRN achieves a 1.87% return, which is significantly higher than IGCB's 0.08% return.

FLRN

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 1.87%
• 6M: 2.19%
• 1Y: 4.88%
• 3Y*: 5.67%
• 5Y*: 4.19%
• 10Y*: 3.03%

IGCB

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 0.37%
• YTD: 0.08%
• 6M: -0.02%
• 1Y: 5.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLRN vs. IGCB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLRN SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	1.87%	5.01%	0.60%
IGCB TCW Corporate Bond ETF	0.08%	8.42%	-0.39%

Correlation

The correlation between FLRN and IGCB is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2024	0.19

Return for Risk

FLRN vs. IGCB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLRN

FLRN Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Martin Ratio Rank: 99

IGCB

IGCB Risk / Return Rank: 38
IGCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
IGCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
IGCB Omega Ratio Rank: 38
IGCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
IGCB Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

FLRN vs. IGCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN) and TCW Corporate Bond ETF (IGCB). 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.

	FLRN	IGCB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	7.18	1.38	+5.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	13.18	1.96	+11.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	3.44	1.25	+2.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	21.54	1.85	+19.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	130.06	5.69	+124.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLRN vs. IGCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLRN Sharpe Ratio is 7.18, which is higher than the IGCB Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLRN and IGCB, 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

	FLRN	IGCB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.18	1.38	+5.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	2.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.72	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	1.09	-0.59

Drawdowns

FLRN vs. IGCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLRN drawdown since its inception was -14.64%, which is greater than IGCB's maximum drawdown of -4.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLRN and IGCB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLRN	IGCB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.64%	-4.20%	-10.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.23%	-2.91%	+2.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.43%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-2.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-14.64%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.31%	+1.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.83%	-0.93%	-0.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.04%	0.95%	-0.91%

Volatility

FLRN vs. IGCB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN) is 0.15%, while TCW Corporate Bond ETF (IGCB) has a volatility of 1.35%. This indicates that FLRN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IGCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLRN	IGCB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.15%	1.35%	-1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.52%	2.78%	-2.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68%	3.92%	-3.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.69%	4.82%	-3.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.20%	4.82%	-0.62%

FLRN vs. IGCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLRN has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IGCB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLRN vs. IGCB - Dividend Comparison

FLRN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.51%, less than IGCB's 4.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRN SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	4.51%	4.89%	5.67%	5.68%	1.95%	0.39%	1.22%	2.76%	2.39%	1.64%	1.06%	0.63%
IGCB TCW Corporate Bond ETF	4.75%	4.52%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLRN and IGCB in my portfolio?

FLRN and IGCB have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLRN or IGCB?

IGCB has higher volatility (1.35%) compared to FLRN (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLRN dropped -14.64% vs IGCB's -4.20%.

Which ETF is better, FLRN or IGCB?

On 1-year performance, IGCB leads with 5.37% vs 4.88% for FLRN. On fees, FLRN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLRN has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLRN or IGCB?

Over the 1-year period, IGCB has performed better with a 5.37% return vs 4.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLRN or IGCB?

FLRN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for IGCB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLRN or IGCB?

IGCB has the higher dividend yield at 4.75%, compared with 4.51% for FLRN.

What is the main difference between FLRN and IGCB?

FLRN tracks Bloomberg US Floating Rate Notes (<5 Y), while IGCB tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: State Street and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLRN and 0.35% for IGCB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.18 vs 1.38), 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.