IFLN vs. HYG
IFLN (Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF) and HYG (iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds - IFLN tracks the Bloomberg US High Yield Enhanced Fallen Angels Index while HYG tracks the iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IFLN returned 4.60%/yr vs 4.94%/yr for HYG. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IFLN charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for HYG.
Performance
IFLN vs. HYG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IFLN achieves a 0.57% return, which is significantly lower than HYG's 1.32% return. Over the past 10 years, IFLN has underperformed HYG with an annualized return of 4.60%, while HYG has yielded a comparatively higher 4.94% annualized return.
IFLN
- 1D
- -0.25%
- 1M
- 0.55%
- YTD
- 0.57%
- 6M
- 0.84%
- 1Y
- 5.87%
- 3Y*
- 7.32%
- 5Y*
- 3.59%
- 10Y*
- 4.60%
HYG
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 0.36%
- YTD
- 1.32%
- 6M
- 1.73%
- 1Y
- 6.51%
- 3Y*
- 8.48%
- 5Y*
- 3.77%
- 10Y*
- 4.94%
IFLN vs. HYG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IFLN Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF | 0.57% | 8.75% | 5.54% | 11.19% | -8.77% | 3.32% | 5.20% | 13.59% | -2.69% | 5.12% |
HYG iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 1.32% | 8.59% | 7.97% | 11.54% | -10.98% | 3.76% | 4.47% | 14.09% | -2.02% | 6.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between IFLN and HYG is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2007 | 0.76 |
The correlation between IFLN and HYG shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (all time) to 0.94 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IFLN vs. HYG — Risk / Return Rank
IFLN
HYG
IFLN vs. HYG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF (IFLN) and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG). 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.
| IFLN | HYG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.52 | 1.72 | -0.20 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.20 | 2.59 | -0.39 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.33 | -0.04 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.44 | 2.79 | -1.35 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.93 | 12.34 | -6.40 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IFLN | HYG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.52 | 1.72 | -0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.57 | 0.50 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.67 | 0.60 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.29 | 0.46 | -0.17 |
Drawdowns
IFLN vs. HYG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IFLN drawdown since its inception was -44.79%, which is greater than HYG's maximum drawdown of -34.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFLN and HYG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IFLN | HYG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.79% | -34.25% | -10.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.08% | -2.34% | -1.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.08% | -4.56% | +0.48% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.76% | -15.79% | +2.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -21.52% | -22.03% | +0.51% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.49% | -0.28% | -0.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.33% | -3.24% | -1.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.99% | 0.53% | +0.46% |
Volatility
IFLN vs. HYG - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF (IFLN) and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) have volatilities of 1.26% and 1.21%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IFLN | HYG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.26% | 1.21% | +0.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.17% | 3.01% | +0.16% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.90% | 3.81% | +0.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.37% | 7.53% | -1.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.89% | 8.29% | -1.40% |
IFLN vs. HYG - Expense Ratio Comparison
IFLN has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than HYG's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
IFLN vs. HYG - Dividend Comparison
IFLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.82%, less than HYG's 5.92% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HYG iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 5.92% | 5.71% | 6.01% | 5.74% | 5.30% | 4.02% | 4.88% | 4.99% | 5.54% | 5.12% | 5.27% | 5.90% |
IFLN Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF | 5.82% | 5.48% | 5.69% | 4.68% | 3.52% | 3.37% | 3.90% | 4.03% | 4.44% | 4.14% | 4.58% | 4.69% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IFLN and HYG have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IFLN has higher volatility (1.26%) compared to HYG (1.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IFLN dropped -44.79% vs HYG's -34.25%.
On 10-year performance, HYG leads with 4.94% vs 4.60% for IFLN. On fees, IFLN is cheaper at 0.23% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, HYG has performed better with a 4.94% return vs 4.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IFLN is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for HYG.
HYG has the higher dividend yield at 5.92%, compared with 5.82% for IFLN.
IFLN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Enhanced Fallen Angels Index, while HYG tracks iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IFLN and 0.49% for HYG.
HYG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 1.51), 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.
Find the right allocation for IFLN and HYG
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