PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LCTU vs. HYXF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LCTU vs. HYXF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and iShares ESG Advanced High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYXF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCTU achieves a 9.23% return, which is significantly higher than HYXF's 1.34% return.


LCTU

1D
1.73%
1M
2.67%
YTD
9.23%
6M
9.49%
1Y
25.98%
3Y*
19.96%
5Y*
12.39%
10Y*

HYXF

1D
0.29%
1M
1.24%
YTD
1.34%
6M
1.95%
1Y
6.13%
3Y*
8.59%
5Y*
3.71%
10Y*
5.12%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LCTU vs. HYXF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF
9.23%16.96%24.00%25.38%-20.02%17.74%
HYXF
iShares ESG Advanced High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
1.34%8.88%8.35%11.87%-11.90%2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTU and HYXF is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.75

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.64

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021

0.68

The correlation between LCTU and HYXF shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (3 years) to 0.75 (1 year), 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

LCTU vs. HYXF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCTU
LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank

HYXF
HYXF Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
HYXF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HYXF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
HYXF Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
HYXF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
HYXF Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LCTU vs. HYXF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and iShares ESG Advanced High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYXF). 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.


LCTUHYXFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.44

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.30

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.78

2.40

+0.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.10

10.72

+1.38

LCTU vs. HYXF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTU Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the HYXF Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTU and HYXF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LCTU vs. HYXF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, which is greater than HYXF's maximum drawdown of -18.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and HYXF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LCTUHYXFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.93%

-18.75%

-7.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.38%

-2.57%

-6.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.83%

-4.81%

-15.02%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.93%

-16.00%

-9.93%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-18.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.57%

0.00%

-0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.29%

-2.57%

-3.72%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.15%

0.57%

+1.58%

Volatility

LCTU vs. HYXF - Volatility Comparison

BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) has a higher volatility of 4.49% compared to iShares ESG Advanced High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYXF) at 1.29%. This indicates that LCTU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HYXF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LCTUHYXFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.49%

1.29%

+3.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.05%

3.01%

+7.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.76%

3.83%

+8.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.23%

8.05%

+9.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.04%

8.31%

+8.73%

LCTU vs. HYXF - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than HYXF's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

LCTU vs. HYXF - Dividend Comparison

LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, less than HYXF's 6.07% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
HYXF
iShares ESG Advanced High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
6.07%6.19%6.40%5.93%5.37%4.56%4.96%5.29%6.14%5.85%3.16%
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF
1.15%1.02%1.27%1.46%1.63%2.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


LCTU and HYXF have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LCTU has higher volatility (4.49%) compared to HYXF (1.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTU dropped -25.93% vs HYXF's -18.75%.

On 5-year performance, LCTU leads with 12.39% vs 3.71% for HYXF. On fees, LCTU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, HYXF has been the lower-risk option at 1.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, LCTU has performed better with a 12.39% return vs 3.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LCTU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for HYXF.

HYXF has the higher dividend yield at 6.07%, compared with 1.15% for LCTU.

LCTU is categorized as ESG, while HYXF is High Yield Bonds. They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LCTU and 0.35% for HYXF.

LCTU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.61), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LCTU and HYXF

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