LQD vs. BABO
LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and BABO (YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index, while BABO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by YieldMax. LQD is passively managed, while BABO is actively managed. Over the past year, LQD returned 5.80% vs -1.50% for BABO. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for BABO.
Performance
LQD vs. BABO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly higher than BABO's -20.64% return.
LQD
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 0.80%
- YTD
- 0.82%
- 6M
- 1.24%
- 1Y
- 5.80%
- 3Y*
- 5.30%
- 5Y*
- -0.21%
- 10Y*
- 2.54%
BABO
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- -16.79%
- YTD
- -20.64%
- 6M
- -24.20%
- 1Y
- -1.50%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LQD vs. BABO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.82% | 7.90% | -0.31% |
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF | -20.64% | 46.84% | 0.65% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQD and BABO is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 8, 2024 | 0.09 |
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
LQD vs. BABO — Risk / Return Rank
LQD
BABO
LQD vs. BABO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO). 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.
| LQD | BABO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.36 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.01 | +0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.55 | -0.13 | +1.68 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.37 | -0.28 | +4.65 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LQD vs. BABO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, smaller than the maximum BABO drawdown of -33.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and BABO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQD | BABO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.95% | -33.33% | +8.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.34% | -33.33% | +29.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.43% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.95% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.95% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.37% | -33.33% | +29.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -13.90% | +9.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.19% | 15.34% | -14.15% |
Volatility
LQD vs. BABO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) is 1.78%, while YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) has a volatility of 8.72%. This indicates that LQD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BABO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQD | BABO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.78% | 8.72% | -6.94% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.02% | 24.44% | -20.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.37% | 35.33% | -29.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.65% | 36.67% | -28.02% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.69% | 36.67% | -27.98% |
LQD vs. BABO - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than BABO's 0.99% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQD vs. BABO - Dividend Comparison
LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.55%, less than BABO's 98.48% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF | 98.48% | 85.50% | 20.65% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.55% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LQD and BABO have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BABO has higher volatility (8.72%) compared to LQD (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQD dropped -24.95% vs BABO's -33.33%.
On 1-year performance, LQD leads with 5.80% vs -1.50% for BABO. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LQD has performed better with a 5.80% return vs -1.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for BABO.
BABO has the higher dividend yield at 98.48%, compared with 4.55% for LQD.
LQD is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while BABO is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: iShares and YieldMax. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LQD and 0.99% for BABO.
LQD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.97 vs -0.12), 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 LQD and BABO
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