IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L).
IBTS.L and CSP1.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IBTS.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index. It was launched on Jun 2, 2006. CSP1.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P 500 Index. It was launched on May 19, 2010. Both IBTS.L and CSP1.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IBTS.L or CSP1.L.
Key characteristics
| IBTS.L | CSP1.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 2.78% | 7.62% |
| 1Y Return | 3.82% | 24.29% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 3.86% | 11.40% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 2.60% | 14.06% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 4.47% | 15.42% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.45 | 2.47 |
| Daily Std Dev | 7.93% | 10.71% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.99% | -25.48% |
| Current Drawdown | -8.35% | -3.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTS.L and CSP1.L is 0.12, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IBTS.L achieves a 2.78% return, which is significantly lower than CSP1.L's 7.62% return. Over the past 10 years, IBTS.L has underperformed CSP1.L with an annualized return of 4.47%, while CSP1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.42% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both IBTS.L and CSP1.L have an expense ratio of 0.07%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L). 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.
Dividends
IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.85%, while CSP1.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTS.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF | 4.85% | 3.79% | 0.88% | 0.85% | 2.33% | 3.05% | 2.01% | 1.31% | 0.91% | 0.76% | 0.42% | 0.30% |
CSP1.L iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTS.L drawdown since its inception was -18.99%, smaller than the maximum CSP1.L drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTS.L and CSP1.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IBTS.L vs. CSP1.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) is 2.72%, while iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L) has a volatility of 4.56%. This indicates that IBTS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CSP1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.