IBHG vs. FALN

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IBHG (iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF) and FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds from iShares - IBHG tracks the Bloomberg 2027 Term High Yield and Income Index - Benchmark TR Gross while FALN tracks the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBHG returned 7.41%/yr vs 9.26%/yr for FALN. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IBHG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FALN.

Performance

IBHG vs. FALN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG) and iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBHG achieves a 1.06% return, which is significantly lower than FALN's 1.78% return.

IBHG

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.14%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: 1.66%
• 1Y: 4.71%
• 3Y*: 7.41%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FALN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.57%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 6M: 1.70%
• 1Y: 9.07%
• 3Y*: 9.26%
• 5Y*: 3.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

IBHG vs. FALN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF	1.06%	6.90%	7.42%	11.27%	-8.88%	1.07%
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	1.78%	8.92%	7.68%	13.47%	-13.79%	1.02%

Correlation

The correlation between IBHG and FALN is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2021	0.80

The correlation between IBHG and FALN shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBHG vs. FALN — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBHG

IBHG Risk / Return Rank: 80
IBHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IBHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
IBHG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
IBHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBHG Martin Ratio Rank: 92

FALN

FALN Risk / Return Rank: 57
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

IBHG vs. FALN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG) and iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). 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.

	IBHG	FALN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	2.01	+0.24
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	2.91	+0.59
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.39	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.55	2.28	+4.27
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	24.03	9.55	+14.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBHG vs. FALN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBHG Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is comparable to the FALN Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBHG and FALN, 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

	IBHG	FALN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.24	2.01	+0.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.74	-0.17

Drawdowns

IBHG vs. FALN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBHG drawdown since its inception was -13.85%, smaller than the maximum FALN drawdown of -29.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBHG and FALN.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBHG	FALN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.85%	-29.22%	+15.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.73%	-3.96%	+3.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.39%	-5.92%	+2.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-0.04%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.67%	-3.32%	+0.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.20%	0.95%	-0.75%

Volatility

IBHG vs. FALN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG) is 0.60%, while iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) has a volatility of 1.40%. This indicates that IBHG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FALN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBHG	FALN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.60%	1.40%	-0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.53%	3.63%	-2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.10%	4.54%	-2.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.37%	7.31%	-0.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.37%	8.95%	-2.58%

IBHG vs. FALN - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBHG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FALN's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBHG vs. FALN - Dividend Comparison

IBHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.07%, less than FALN's 6.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	6.45%	6.31%	6.24%	5.37%	5.08%	3.40%	5.14%	5.35%	5.97%	6.98%	3.55%
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF	6.07%	6.33%	7.02%	6.66%	5.62%	2.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBHG and FALN in my portfolio?

IBHG and FALN have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBHG or FALN?

FALN has higher volatility (1.40%) compared to IBHG (0.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBHG dropped -13.85% vs FALN's -29.22%.

Which ETF is better, IBHG or FALN?

On 3-year performance, FALN leads with 9.26% vs 7.41% for IBHG. On fees, FALN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, IBHG has been the lower-risk option at 0.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBHG or FALN?

Over the 3-year period, FALN has performed better with a 9.26% return vs 7.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBHG or FALN?

FALN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for IBHG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBHG or FALN?

FALN has the higher dividend yield at 6.45%, compared with 6.07% for IBHG.

What is the main difference between IBHG and FALN?

IBHG tracks Bloomberg 2027 Term High Yield and Income Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FALN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for IBHG and 0.25% for FALN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 2.01), 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.