LEND vs. IBHG
LEND (SEI High Yield Bond & Alternative Credit ETF) and IBHG (iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. LEND is actively managed, while IBHG is passively managed. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LEND charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IBHG.
Performance
LEND vs. IBHG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
LEND
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.62%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
IBHG
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.22%
- 6M
- 1.24%
- YTD
- 1.37%
- 1Y
- 3.76%
- 3Y*
- 6.98%
- 5Y*
- 3.62%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.53%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2.51M | $2.62M | $3.51M | |
| $3.10M | $2.41M | $1.91M |
LEND vs. IBHG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
LEND SEI High Yield Bond & Alternative Credit ETF | 0.58% |
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF | 0.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between LEND and IBHG is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2026 | 0.48 |
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
LEND vs. IBHG — Risk / Return Rank
LEND
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IBHG
LEND vs. IBHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SEI High Yield Bond & Alternative Credit ETF (LEND) and iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG). 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.
| LEND | IBHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.35 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 5.20 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 19.06 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LEND vs. IBHG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LEND drawdown since its inception was -0.87%, smaller than the maximum IBHG drawdown of -13.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEND and IBHG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LEND | IBHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.87% | -13.85% | +12.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -0.73% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -3.39% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -13.85% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.38% | -0.23% | -0.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.28% | -2.60% | +2.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.20% | — |
Volatility
LEND vs. IBHG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LEND | IBHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.47% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 1.53% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.19% | 2.00% | +1.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.19% | 6.30% | -3.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.19% | 6.28% | -3.09% |
LEND vs. IBHG - Expense Ratio Comparison
LEND has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IBHG's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
LEND vs. IBHG - Dividend Comparison
LEND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, less than IBHG's 6.04% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF | 6.04% | 6.33% | 7.02% | 6.66% | 5.62% | 2.13% |
LEND SEI High Yield Bond & Alternative Credit ETF | 0.98% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LEND and IBHG have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBHG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBHG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for LEND.
IBHG has the higher dividend yield at 6.04%, compared with 0.98% for LEND.
They also come from different issuers: SEI and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for LEND and 0.35% for IBHG.
Find the right allocation for LEND and IBHG
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