LDRH vs. THYF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LDRH (iShares iBonds 1-5 Year High Yield and Income Ladder ETF) and THYF (T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. LDRH is passively managed, while THYF is actively managed. Over the past year, LDRH returned 6.43% vs 7.02% for THYF. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LDRH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for THYF.

Performance

LDRH vs. THYF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds 1-5 Year High Yield and Income Ladder ETF (LDRH) and T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF (THYF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LDRH achieves a 1.79% return, which is significantly higher than THYF's 1.50% return.

LDRH

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 1.79%
• 6M: 2.28%
• 1Y: 6.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

THYF

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: 0.61%
• YTD: 1.50%
• 6M: 1.90%
• 1Y: 7.02%
• 3Y*: 8.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LDRH vs. THYF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LDRH iShares iBonds 1-5 Year High Yield and Income Ladder ETF	1.79%	7.18%	0.21%
THYF T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF	1.50%	7.77%	0.43%

Correlation

The correlation between LDRH and THYF is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2024	0.72

The correlation between LDRH and THYF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

LDRH vs. THYF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LDRH	THYF
Energy	100.0%	4.3%
Basic Materials	-	18.3%
Communication Services	-	3.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.9%
Financial Services	-	34.0%
Healthcare	-	9.8%
Industrials	-	6.1%
Real Estate	-	6.8%
Technology	-	3.7%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

LDRH vs. THYF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LDRH

LDRH Risk / Return Rank: 85
LDRH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
LDRH Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
LDRH Omega Ratio Rank: 81
LDRH Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
LDRH Martin Ratio Rank: 91

THYF

THYF Risk / Return Rank: 61
THYF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
THYF Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
THYF Omega Ratio Rank: 64
THYF Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
THYF Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

LDRH vs. THYF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds 1-5 Year High Yield and Income Ladder ETF (LDRH) and T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF (THYF). 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.

	LDRH	THYF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.48	2.01	+0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.99	3.08	+0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.39	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.24	2.51	+2.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.81	11.49	+10.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LDRH vs. THYF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LDRH Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is comparable to the THYF Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LDRH and THYF, 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

	LDRH	THYF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.48	2.01	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.69	1.47	+0.22

Drawdowns

LDRH vs. THYF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LDRH drawdown since its inception was -3.17%, smaller than the maximum THYF drawdown of -5.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LDRH and THYF.

Drawdown Indicators

	LDRH	THYF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.17%	-5.24%	+2.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.23%	-2.80%	+1.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-0.35%	+0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.24%	-0.82%	+0.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	0.61%	-0.31%

Volatility

LDRH vs. THYF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds 1-5 Year High Yield and Income Ladder ETF (LDRH) is 0.69%, while T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF (THYF) has a volatility of 1.12%. This indicates that LDRH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than THYF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LDRH	THYF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	1.12%	-0.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.97%	2.72%	-0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.61%	3.52%	-0.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.52%	5.82%	-2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.52%	5.82%	-2.30%

LDRH vs. THYF - Expense Ratio Comparison

LDRH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than THYF's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

LDRH vs. THYF - Dividend Comparison

LDRH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.00%, which matches THYF's 7.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
LDRH iShares iBonds 1-5 Year High Yield and Income Ladder ETF	7.00%	6.41%	1.13%	0.00%	0.00%
THYF T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF	7.02%	7.17%	7.30%	8.02%	1.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LDRH and THYF in my portfolio?

LDRH and THYF have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LDRH or THYF?

THYF has higher volatility (1.12%) compared to LDRH (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LDRH dropped -3.17% vs THYF's -5.24%.

Which ETF is better, LDRH or THYF?

On 1-year performance, THYF leads with 7.02% vs 6.43% for LDRH. On fees, LDRH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, LDRH has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LDRH or THYF?

Over the 1-year period, THYF has performed better with a 7.02% return vs 6.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LDRH or THYF?

LDRH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for THYF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LDRH or THYF?

THYF has the higher dividend yield at 7.02%, compared with 7.00% for LDRH.

What is the main difference between LDRH and THYF?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for LDRH and 0.56% for THYF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LDRH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.48 vs 2.01), 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.