JLQD vs. IBHF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

JLQD (Janus Henderson Corporate Bond ETF) and IBHF (iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. JLQD is passively managed, while IBHF is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, JLQD returned 5.54%/yr vs 7.23%/yr for IBHF. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JLQD charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IBHF.

Performance

JLQD vs. IBHF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Janus Henderson Corporate Bond ETF (JLQD) and iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JLQD achieves a 0.24% return, which is significantly lower than IBHF's 0.41% return.

JLQD

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 0.42%
• YTD: 0.24%
• 6M: 0.13%
• 1Y: 6.25%
• 3Y*: 5.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBHF

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.05%
• YTD: 0.41%
• 6M: 0.86%
• 1Y: 4.76%
• 3Y*: 7.23%
• 5Y*: 4.05%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

JLQD vs. IBHF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
JLQD Janus Henderson Corporate Bond ETF	0.24%	7.77%	3.21%	8.76%	-15.99%	-1.25%
IBHF iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF	0.41%	6.60%	8.55%	10.40%	-6.66%	0.80%

Correlation

The correlation between JLQD and IBHF is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 10, 2021	0.46

The correlation between JLQD and IBHF shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (1 year) to 0.50 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

JLQD vs. IBHF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JLQD	IBHF
Financial Services	2.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

JLQD vs. IBHF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

JLQD

JLQD Risk / Return Rank: 47
JLQD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
JLQD Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
JLQD Omega Ratio Rank: 47
JLQD Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
JLQD Martin Ratio Rank: 47

IBHF

IBHF Risk / Return Rank: 86
IBHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IBHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
IBHF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IBHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
IBHF Martin Ratio Rank: 92

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

JLQD vs. IBHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Janus Henderson Corporate Bond ETF (JLQD) and iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF). 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.

	JLQD	IBHF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.62	2.36	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	4.14	-1.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.51	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	7.48	-5.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.63	23.36	-15.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JLQD vs. IBHF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JLQD Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is lower than the IBHF Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JLQD and IBHF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	JLQD	IBHF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.62	2.36	-0.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.02	0.83	-0.81

Drawdowns

JLQD vs. IBHF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JLQD drawdown since its inception was -21.17%, which is greater than IBHF's maximum drawdown of -11.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JLQD and IBHF.

Drawdown Indicators

	JLQD	IBHF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.17%	-11.19%	-9.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.87%	-0.64%	-2.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.84%	-2.53%	-4.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-11.19%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.97%	-0.58%	-0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.77%	-1.80%	-6.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	0.20%	+0.62%

Volatility

JLQD vs. IBHF - Volatility Comparison

Janus Henderson Corporate Bond ETF (JLQD) has a higher volatility of 1.25% compared to iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF) at 0.76%. This indicates that JLQD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JLQD	IBHF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.25%	0.76%	+0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.78%	1.22%	+1.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.88%	2.03%	+1.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.32%	5.80%	+0.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.32%	5.66%	+0.66%

JLQD vs. IBHF - Expense Ratio Comparison

JLQD has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than IBHF's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

JLQD vs. IBHF - Dividend Comparison

JLQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.44%, less than IBHF's 6.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBHF iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF	6.54%	6.73%	7.17%	7.33%	6.01%	4.55%	0.61%
JLQD Janus Henderson Corporate Bond ETF	5.44%	5.28%	5.36%	3.99%	2.77%	0.83%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JLQD and IBHF in my portfolio?

JLQD and IBHF have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JLQD or IBHF?

JLQD has higher volatility (1.25%) compared to IBHF (0.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JLQD dropped -21.17% vs IBHF's -11.19%.

Which ETF is better, JLQD or IBHF?

On 3-year performance, IBHF leads with 7.23% vs 5.54% for JLQD. On fees, JLQD is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, IBHF has been the lower-risk option at 0.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JLQD or IBHF?

Over the 3-year period, IBHF has performed better with a 7.23% return vs 5.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JLQD or IBHF?

JLQD is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for IBHF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JLQD or IBHF?

IBHF has the higher dividend yield at 6.54%, compared with 5.44% for JLQD.

What is the main difference between JLQD and IBHF?

They also come from different issuers: Janus Henderson and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for JLQD and 0.35% for IBHF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.62), 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.