GIGB vs. LQD
GIGB (Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - GIGB tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index while LQD tracks the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GIGB returned 0.45%/yr vs -0.04%/yr for LQD. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. GIGB charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LQD.
Performance
GIGB vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GIGB achieves a 0.68% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's 0.46% return.
GIGB
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.63%
- YTD
- 0.68%
- 6M
- 0.43%
- 1Y
- 6.01%
- 3Y*
- 5.10%
- 5Y*
- 0.45%
- 10Y*
- —
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%
GIGB vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GIGB Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.68% | 7.58% | 1.68% | 8.80% | -15.80% | -1.64% | 9.86% | 15.05% | -2.76% | 2.45% |
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% | 3.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between GIGB and LQD is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2017 | 0.96 |
The correlation between GIGB and LQD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
GIGB vs. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
GIGB
LQD
GIGB vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (GIGB) 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.
| GIGB | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.39 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.20 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.10 | 1.83 | +0.28 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.65 | 5.23 | +1.42 |
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
| GIGB | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.40 | 1.14 | +0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 | -0.01 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.29 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.33 | 0.54 | -0.21 |
Drawdowns
GIGB vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GIGB drawdown since its inception was -22.25%, smaller than the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GIGB and LQD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GIGB | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.25% | -24.95% | +2.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.87% | -3.34% | +0.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.69% | -8.43% | +1.74% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.25% | -24.95% | +2.70% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.95% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.94% | -3.72% | +2.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.62% | -3.99% | -1.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.91% | 1.17% | -0.26% |
Volatility
GIGB vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (GIGB) is 1.35%, while iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a volatility of 1.65%. This indicates that GIGB 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
| GIGB | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.35% | 1.65% | -0.30% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.14% | 3.90% | -0.76% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.30% | 5.36% | -1.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.26% | 8.65% | -1.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.67% | 8.68% | -1.01% |
GIGB vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
GIGB has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than LQD's 0.15% 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
GIGB vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
GIGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.61%, which matches LQD's 4.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GIGB Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.61% | 4.69% | 4.45% | 3.67% | 3.12% | 2.25% | 2.62% | 3.22% | 3.31% | 1.55% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
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
With a correlation of 0.99, GIGB and LQD move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
LQD has higher volatility (1.65%) compared to GIGB (1.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GIGB dropped -22.25% vs LQD's -24.95%.
On 5-year performance, GIGB leads with 0.45% vs -0.04% for LQD. On fees, GIGB is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, GIGB has been the lower-risk option at 1.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, GIGB has performed better with a 0.45% return vs -0.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GIGB is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for LQD.
GIGB has the higher dividend yield at 4.61%, compared with 4.57% for LQD.
GIGB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index, while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for GIGB and 0.15% for LQD.
GIGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 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 GIGB 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