ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L
ICBU.L (iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF) and FLOS.L (iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - ICBU.L is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD, while FLOS.L is a Ultra Short-Term Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Floating Rate Note <5 Years Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICBU.L returned 1.61%/yr vs 3.58%/yr for FLOS.L. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICBU.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for FLOS.L.
Performance
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
ICBU.L is traded in USD, while FLOS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FLOS.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICBU.L achieves a 0.34% return, which is significantly lower than FLOS.L's 2.53% return.
ICBU.L
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- -0.12%
- 6M
- 0.53%
- YTD
- 0.34%
- 1Y
- 4.22%
- 3Y*
- 5.40%
- 5Y*
- 1.61%
- 10Y*
- —
FLOS.L
- 1D
- -0.41%
- 1M
- 0.68%
- 6M
- 2.84%
- YTD
- 2.53%
- 1Y
- 5.02%
- 3Y*
- 6.49%
- 5Y*
- 3.58%
- 10Y*
- —
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICBU.L iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF | 0.34% | 7.68% | 4.11% | 6.64% | -9.03% | -1.29% | 6.43% | 10.05% | -0.59% | -0.20% |
FLOS.L iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 2.53% | 12.69% | 4.47% | 11.59% | -9.95% | -0.80% | 3.25% | 6.53% | -6.08% | 4.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICBU.L and FLOS.L is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2017 | 0.18 |
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
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L — Risk / Return Rank
ICBU.L
FLOS.L
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF (ICBU.L) and iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| ICBU.L | FLOS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.52 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.69 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.13 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.89 | 1.11 | +0.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.74 | 2.60 | +4.14 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICBU.L drawdown since its inception was -14.04%, smaller than the maximum FLOS.L drawdown of -30.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICBU.L and FLOS.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICBU.L | FLOS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.04% | -30.24% | +16.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.22% | -4.48% | +2.26% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.42% | -7.75% | +4.33% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.04% | -23.39% | +9.35% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.69% | -0.73% | +0.04% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.75% | -6.48% | +3.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.62% | 1.93% | -1.31% |
Volatility
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF (ICBU.L) is 0.87%, while iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L) has a volatility of 1.69%. This indicates that ICBU.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLOS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICBU.L | FLOS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.87% | 1.69% | -0.82% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.71% | 5.23% | -2.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.36% | 6.80% | -3.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.57% | 8.72% | -4.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.61% | 9.62% | -5.01% |
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICBU.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than FLOS.L's 0.12% 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
ICBU.L vs. FLOS.L - Dividend Comparison
ICBU.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.72%, more than FLOS.L's 4.68% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLOS.L iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) | 4.68% | 5.02% | 5.93% | 5.46% | 1.50% | 0.57% | 1.62% | 2.95% | 2.27% | 0.00% |
ICBU.L iShares USD Intermediate Credit Bond UCITS ETF | 6.72% | 4.21% | 3.78% | 2.78% | 1.93% | 1.93% | 2.78% | 2.93% | 2.65% | 0.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ICBU.L and FLOS.L have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FLOS.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FLOS.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for ICBU.L.
ICBU.L is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while FLOS.L is Ultra Short-Term Bonds. ICBU.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD, while FLOS.L tracks Bloomberg US Floating Rate Note <5 Years Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for ICBU.L and 0.12% for FLOS.L.
Find the right allocation for ICBU.L and FLOS.L
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