IEAC.AS vs. LQD
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Core € Corp Bond UCITS ETF (IEAC.AS) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD).
IEAC.AS and LQD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IEAC.AS is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg Euro Corporate Bond Index. It was launched on Mar 6, 2009. LQD is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. It was launched on Jul 26, 2002. Both IEAC.AS and LQD 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: IEAC.AS or LQD.
Key characteristics
IEAC.AS | LQD | |
---|---|---|
YTD Return | -2.12% | -3.08% |
1Y Return | 3.32% | 0.98% |
3Y Return (Ann) | -3.05% | -3.73% |
5Y Return (Ann) | -1.11% | 0.84% |
10Y Return (Ann) | 0.73% | 2.19% |
Sharpe Ratio | 0.76 | 0.13 |
Daily Std Dev | 4.31% | 8.85% |
Max Drawdown | -17.26% | -24.95% |
Current Drawdown | -10.45% | -14.64% |
Correlation
The correlation between IEAC.AS and LQD is 0.28, 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
IEAC.AS vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IEAC.AS achieves a -2.12% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's -3.08% return. Over the past 10 years, IEAC.AS has underperformed LQD with an annualized return of 0.73%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively higher 2.19% 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.
IEAC.AS vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
IEAC.AS has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IEAC.AS vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core € Corp Bond UCITS ETF (IEAC.AS) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). 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
IEAC.AS vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
IEAC.AS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.22%, less than LQD's 4.36% yield.
TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
iShares Core € Corp Bond UCITS ETF | 3.22% | 2.51% | 0.84% | 0.81% | 0.84% | 1.10% | 0.98% | 1.52% | 1.66% | 0.90% | 2.22% | 2.62% |
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.36% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% | 3.39% | 3.83% |
Drawdowns
IEAC.AS vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IEAC.AS drawdown since its inception was -17.26%, smaller than the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEAC.AS and LQD. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IEAC.AS vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core € Corp Bond UCITS ETF (IEAC.AS) is 2.29%, while iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a volatility of 2.45%. This indicates that IEAC.AS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.