HARD vs. LQDW
HARD (Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF) and LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HARD is a Commodities fund actively managed by Simplify, while LQDW is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index. HARD is actively managed, while LQDW is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HARD returned 13.00%/yr vs 3.79%/yr for LQDW. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. HARD charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for LQDW.
Performance
HARD vs. LQDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HARD achieves a 14.81% return, which is significantly higher than LQDW's 1.25% return.
HARD
- 1D
- -0.24%
- 1M
- -9.01%
- YTD
- 14.81%
- 6M
- 14.73%
- 1Y
- 24.26%
- 3Y*
- 13.00%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LQDW
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.83%
- YTD
- 1.25%
- 6M
- 1.65%
- 1Y
- 6.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.79%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
HARD vs. LQDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
HARD Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF | 14.81% | 12.19% | 20.48% | -5.04% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 1.25% | 9.05% | 2.60% | 0.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between HARD and LQDW is -0.26, 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 | -0.26 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 2023 | -0.06 |
The correlation between HARD and LQDW shifts across timeframes, from -0.26 (1 year) to -0.06 (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
HARD vs. LQDW — Risk / Return Rank
HARD
LQDW
HARD vs. LQDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD) 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.
| HARD | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.93 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.38 | -0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.97 | 2.51 | -0.55 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.51 | 9.39 | -4.88 |
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
| HARD | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.92 | 1.85 | -0.93 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.68 | 0.46 | +0.22 |
Drawdowns
HARD vs. LQDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HARD drawdown since its inception was -13.51%, which is greater than LQDW's maximum drawdown of -9.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HARD and LQDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HARD | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.51% | -9.20% | -4.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.38% | -2.59% | -9.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.51% | -6.74% | -6.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.38% | -0.35% | -10.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.47% | -2.35% | -3.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.39% | 0.69% | +4.70% |
Volatility
HARD vs. LQDW - Volatility Comparison
Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD) has a higher volatility of 8.11% compared to iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) at 1.46%. This indicates that HARD'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
| HARD | LQDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.11% | 1.46% | +6.65% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.64% | 3.02% | +18.62% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.47% | 3.53% | +22.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.09% | 5.49% | +13.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.09% | 5.49% | +13.60% |
HARD vs. LQDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
HARD has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than LQDW's 0.34% expense ratio.
Dividends
HARD vs. LQDW - Dividend Comparison
HARD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, less than LQDW's 12.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HARD Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF | 2.61% | 2.36% | 3.51% | 1.95% | 0.00% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.57% | 16.02% | 15.74% | 19.28% | 8.85% |
Frequently Asked Questions
HARD and LQDW have a correlation of -0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
HARD has higher volatility (8.11%) compared to LQDW (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HARD dropped -13.51% vs LQDW's -9.20%.
On 3-year performance, HARD leads with 13.00% vs 3.79% for LQDW. On fees, LQDW is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, LQDW has been the lower-risk option at 1.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, HARD has performed better with a 13.00% return vs 3.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQDW is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for HARD.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.57%, compared with 2.61% for HARD.
HARD is categorized as Commodities, while LQDW is Corporate Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Simplify and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for HARD and 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 0.92), 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 HARD 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