IGF vs. BSCQ
IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and BSCQ (Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net), while BSCQ is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IGF returned 10.87%/yr vs 1.53%/yr for BSCQ. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for BSCQ.
Performance
IGF vs. BSCQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 9.70% return, which is significantly higher than BSCQ's 1.68% return.
IGF
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- -0.13%
- YTD
- 9.70%
- 6M
- 10.12%
- 1Y
- 18.50%
- 3Y*
- 16.79%
- 5Y*
- 10.87%
- 10Y*
- 8.80%
BSCQ
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 0.25%
- YTD
- 1.68%
- 6M
- 1.81%
- 1Y
- 4.25%
- 3Y*
- 5.17%
- 5Y*
- 1.53%
- 10Y*
- —
IGF vs. BSCQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 9.70% | 21.31% | 14.81% | 6.14% | -1.26% | 11.57% | -6.50% | 25.82% | -9.95% | 19.31% |
BSCQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF | 1.68% | 5.02% | 4.86% | 5.71% | -8.31% | -1.68% | 9.41% | 13.94% | -2.40% | 5.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between IGF and BSCQ is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2016 | 0.22 |
The correlation between IGF and BSCQ shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (1 year) to 0.24 (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
IGF vs. BSCQ — Risk / Return Rank
IGF
BSCQ
IGF vs. BSCQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ). 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.
| IGF | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -5.28 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -13.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 3.43 | -2.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.17 | 41.77 | -38.61 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.98 | 181.80 | -172.82 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IGF vs. BSCQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, which is greater than BSCQ's maximum drawdown of -16.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and BSCQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IGF | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.33% | -16.50% | -41.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.87% | -0.10% | -5.77% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.28% | -1.13% | -13.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.83% | -13.02% | -7.81% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.11% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.96% | -0.03% | -2.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.85% | -2.84% | -9.01% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.06% | 0.02% | +2.04% |
Volatility
IGF vs. BSCQ - Volatility Comparison
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) has a higher volatility of 3.38% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ) at 0.13%. This indicates that IGF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSCQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IGF | BSCQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.38% | 0.13% | +3.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.73% | 0.43% | +8.30% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.58% | 0.61% | +9.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.97% | 3.29% | +10.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.82% | 4.75% | +12.07% |
IGF vs. BSCQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than BSCQ's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
IGF vs. BSCQ - Dividend Comparison
IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.91%, less than BSCQ's 4.46% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BSCQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF | 4.46% | 4.14% | 4.05% | 3.53% | 2.54% | 1.91% | 2.42% | 2.96% | 3.32% | 2.92% | 0.51% | 0.00% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 2.91% | 3.23% | 3.21% | 3.36% | 2.67% | 2.42% | 2.33% | 3.27% | 3.52% | 2.95% | 2.98% | 3.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IGF and BSCQ have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IGF has higher volatility (3.38%) compared to BSCQ (0.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs BSCQ's -16.50%.
On 5-year performance, IGF leads with 10.87% vs 1.53% for BSCQ. On fees, BSCQ is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, BSCQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IGF has performed better with a 10.87% return vs 1.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BSCQ is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.
BSCQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.46%, compared with 2.91% for IGF.
IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while BSCQ is Corporate Bonds. IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net), while BSCQ tracks NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.10% for BSCQ.
BSCQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.04 vs 1.76), 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 IGF and BSCQ
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