LQD vs. ICSH
LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and ICSH (iShares Ultra Short Duration Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index, while ICSH is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. LQD is passively managed, while ICSH is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, LQD returned 2.41%/yr vs 2.77%/yr for ICSH. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for ICSH.
Performance
LQD vs. ICSH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a -0.06% return, which is significantly lower than ICSH's 1.43% return. Over the past 10 years, LQD has underperformed ICSH with an annualized return of 2.41%, while ICSH has yielded a comparatively higher 2.77% annualized return.
LQD
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- -0.67%
- YTD
- -0.06%
- 6M
- -0.06%
- 1Y
- 5.73%
- 3Y*
- 4.95%
- 5Y*
- -0.28%
- 10Y*
- 2.41%
ICSH
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.18%
- YTD
- 1.43%
- 6M
- 1.75%
- 1Y
- 4.30%
- 3Y*
- 5.15%
- 5Y*
- 3.67%
- 10Y*
- 2.77%
LQD vs. ICSH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | -0.06% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
ICSH iShares Ultra Short Duration Bond Active ETF | 1.43% | 4.96% | 5.52% | 5.58% | 0.97% | 0.16% | 1.61% | 3.17% | 2.25% | 1.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQD and ICSH is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2013 | 0.21 |
Over the past year, LQD and ICSH have become more correlated (0.42) than their long-term average of 0.21, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. ICSH — Risk / Return Rank
LQD
ICSH
LQD vs. ICSH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and iShares Ultra Short Duration Bond Active ETF (ICSH). 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.
| LQD | ICSH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -9.92 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -25.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 6.56 | -5.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.72 | 43.67 | -41.94 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.88 | 288.81 | -283.92 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LQD | ICSH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.08 | 11.01 | -9.92 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 | 7.62 | -7.66 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.28 | 2.63 | -2.35 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.54 | 1.93 | -1.40 |
Drawdowns
LQD vs. ICSH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, which is greater than ICSH's maximum drawdown of -3.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and ICSH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQD | ICSH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.95% | -3.94% | -21.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.34% | -0.10% | -3.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.43% | -0.10% | -8.33% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.95% | -0.73% | -24.22% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.95% | -3.94% | -21.01% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.21% | -0.02% | -4.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -0.08% | -3.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.18% | 0.01% | +1.17% |
Volatility
LQD vs. ICSH - Volatility Comparison
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a higher volatility of 1.62% compared to iShares Ultra Short Duration Bond Active ETF (ICSH) at 0.15%. This indicates that LQD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICSH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQD | ICSH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.62% | 0.15% | +1.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.94% | 0.30% | +3.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.32% | 0.39% | +4.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.65% | 0.48% | +8.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.68% | 1.06% | +7.62% |
LQD vs. ICSH - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than ICSH's 0.08% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
LQD vs. ICSH - Dividend Comparison
LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.59%, more than ICSH's 4.34% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICSH iShares Ultra Short Duration Bond Active ETF | 4.34% | 4.55% | 5.24% | 4.78% | 1.66% | 0.42% | 1.21% | 2.61% | 2.20% | 1.36% | 0.88% | 0.54% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.59% | 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 ICSH have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LQD has higher volatility (1.62%) compared to ICSH (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQD dropped -24.95% vs ICSH's -3.94%.
On 10-year performance, ICSH leads with 2.77% vs 2.41% for LQD. On fees, ICSH is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, ICSH has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ICSH has performed better with a 2.77% return vs 2.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ICSH is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for LQD.
LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 4.34% for ICSH.
LQD is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while ICSH is Ultrashort Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LQD and 0.08% for ICSH.
ICSH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.01 vs 1.08), 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 ICSH
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