IBGB vs. XHLF
IBGB (iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF) and XHLF (BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF) are both Government Bonds funds - IBGB tracks the ICE 2045 Maturity US Treasury Index while XHLF tracks the Bloomberg US Treasury 6 Month Duration Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBGB returned 5.38% vs 3.92% for XHLF. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. IBGB charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for XHLF.
Performance
IBGB vs. XHLF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBGB achieves a -0.40% return, which is significantly lower than XHLF's 1.39% return.
IBGB
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 0.61%
- YTD
- -0.40%
- 6M
- -1.50%
- 1Y
- 5.38%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XHLF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.27%
- YTD
- 1.39%
- 6M
- 1.71%
- 1Y
- 3.92%
- 3Y*
- 4.62%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBGB vs. XHLF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBGB iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF | -0.40% | 2.71% |
XHLF BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF | 1.39% | 3.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBGB and XHLF is -0.02, 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 | -0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025 | -0.02 |
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
IBGB vs. XHLF — Risk / Return Rank
IBGB
XHLF
IBGB vs. XHLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) and BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XHLF). 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.
| IBGB | XHLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -11.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -44.87 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 11.75 | -10.64 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.80 | 98.81 | -98.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.15 | 670.31 | -668.16 |
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
| IBGB | XHLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.64 | 12.43 | -11.79 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.20 | 10.75 | -10.54 |
Drawdowns
IBGB vs. XHLF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBGB drawdown since its inception was -8.09%, which is greater than XHLF's maximum drawdown of -0.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBGB and XHLF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBGB | XHLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -8.09% | -0.11% | -7.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.79% | -0.04% | -6.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -0.06% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.18% | 0.00% | -4.18% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.17% | -0.00% | -3.17% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.51% | 0.01% | +2.50% |
Volatility
IBGB vs. XHLF - Volatility Comparison
iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) has a higher volatility of 2.61% compared to BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XHLF) at 0.08%. This indicates that IBGB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XHLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBGB | XHLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.61% | 0.08% | +2.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.79% | 0.22% | +5.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.44% | 0.32% | +8.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.53% | 0.42% | +9.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.53% | 0.42% | +9.11% |
IBGB vs. XHLF - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBGB has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is higher than XHLF's 0.03% 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
IBGB vs. XHLF - Dividend Comparison
IBGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.63%, more than XHLF's 3.85% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBGB iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF | 4.63% | 3.53% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XHLF BondBloxx Bloomberg Six Month Target Duration US Treasury ETF | 3.85% | 3.98% | 4.96% | 4.50% | 0.86% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBGB and XHLF have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IBGB has higher volatility (2.61%) compared to XHLF (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBGB dropped -8.09% vs XHLF's -0.11%.
On 1-year performance, IBGB leads with 5.38% vs 3.92% for XHLF. On fees, XHLF is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, XHLF has been the lower-risk option at 0.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IBGB has performed better with a 5.38% return vs 3.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XHLF is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.07% for IBGB.
IBGB has the higher dividend yield at 4.63%, compared with 3.85% for XHLF.
IBGB tracks ICE 2045 Maturity US Treasury Index, while XHLF tracks Bloomberg US Treasury 6 Month Duration Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BondBloxx. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBGB and 0.03% for XHLF.
XHLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (12.43 vs 0.64), 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 IBGB and XHLF
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