IBTS.L vs. SLXX.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) and iShares Core £ Corp Bond UCITS ETF (SLXX.L).
IBTS.L and SLXX.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. SLXX.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Markit iBoxx GBP Liquid Corporates Large Cap Index. It was launched on Mar 29, 2004. Both IBTS.L and SLXX.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 SLXX.L.
Key characteristics
| IBTS.L | SLXX.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 2.50% | -1.25% |
| 1Y Return | 3.33% | 5.21% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 3.92% | -4.28% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 2.54% | -0.61% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 4.51% | 2.43% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.54 | 0.81 |
| Daily Std Dev | 7.91% | 7.07% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.99% | -30.27% |
| Current Drawdown | -8.60% | -16.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTS.L and SLXX.L is 0.24, 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. SLXX.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IBTS.L achieves a 2.50% return, which is significantly higher than SLXX.L's -1.25% return. Over the past 10 years, IBTS.L has outperformed SLXX.L with an annualized return of 4.51%, while SLXX.L has yielded a comparatively lower 2.43% 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. SLXX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBTS.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than SLXX.L's 0.20% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IBTS.L vs. SLXX.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 £ Corp Bond UCITS ETF (SLXX.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. SLXX.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.86%, more than SLXX.L's 4.36% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTS.L iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF | 4.86% | 3.79% | 0.88% | 0.85% | 2.33% | 3.05% | 2.01% | 1.31% | 0.91% | 0.76% | 0.42% | 0.30% |
SLXX.L iShares Core £ Corp Bond UCITS ETF | 4.36% | 4.06% | 2.75% | 2.06% | 2.12% | 2.44% | 2.71% | 2.73% | 2.99% | 3.39% | 3.41% | 3.74% |
Drawdowns
IBTS.L vs. SLXX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTS.L drawdown since its inception was -18.99%, smaller than the maximum SLXX.L drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTS.L and SLXX.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IBTS.L vs. SLXX.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares $ Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (IBTS.L) is 2.70%, while iShares Core £ Corp Bond UCITS ETF (SLXX.L) has a volatility of 2.89%. This indicates that IBTS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLXX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.