LQD vs. IEMG
LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index, while IEMG is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LQD returned 2.06%/yr vs 8.78%/yr for IEMG. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LQD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for IEMG.
Performance
LQD vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a -1.41% return, which is significantly lower than IEMG's 15.55% return. Over the past 10 years, LQD has underperformed IEMG with an annualized return of 2.06%, while IEMG has yielded a comparatively higher 8.78% annualized return.
LQD
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -2.65%
- 6M
- -1.99%
- YTD
- -1.41%
- 1Y
- 1.95%
- 3Y*
- 4.07%
- 5Y*
- -1.00%
- 10Y*
- 2.06%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.35%
IEMG
- 1D
- -1.78%
- 1M
- -6.23%
- 6M
- 7.28%
- YTD
- 15.55%
- 1Y
- 28.48%
- 3Y*
- 17.89%
- 5Y*
- 6.77%
- 10Y*
- 8.78%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.06%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $959.90M | $1.12B | $1.07B | |
| $3.09B | $3.13B | $2.99B |
LQD vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | -1.41% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 15.55% | 32.56% | 6.50% | 11.52% | -19.98% | -0.64% | 17.87% | 17.81% | -14.92% | 37.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQD and IEMG is 0.39, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.39 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.30 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.27 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.21 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2012 | 0.15 |
Over the past year, LQD and IEMG have become more correlated (0.39) than their long-term average of 0.15, 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. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank
LQD
IEMG
LQD vs. IEMG - 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 Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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 | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.78 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.08 | 1.24 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.68 | 2.13 | -1.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.76 | 6.72 | -4.96 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LQD vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, smaller than the maximum IEMG drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and IEMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQD | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.95% | -38.71% | +13.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.34% | -13.21% | +9.87% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.87% | -17.21% | +9.34% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.95% | -33.61% | +8.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.95% | -38.71% | +13.76% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.51% | -10.41% | +4.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -12.90% | +8.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.30% | 4.19% | -2.89% |
Volatility
LQD vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) is 1.28%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 7.86%. This indicates that LQD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQD | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.28% | 7.86% | -6.58% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.02% | 21.27% | -17.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.29% | 23.23% | -17.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.64% | 19.21% | -10.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.69% | 20.26% | -11.57% |
LQD vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% 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. IEMG - Dividend Comparison
LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.65%, more than IEMG's 2.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 2.33% | 2.75% | 3.20% | 2.89% | 2.71% | 3.06% | 1.87% | 3.15% | 2.76% | 2.35% | 2.28% | 2.53% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.65% | 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 IEMG have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IEMG has higher volatility (7.86%) compared to LQD (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQD dropped -24.95% vs IEMG's -38.71%.
On 10-year performance, IEMG leads with 8.78% vs 2.06% for LQD. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, IEMG has performed better with a 8.78% return vs 2.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for LQD.
LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.65%, compared with 2.33% for IEMG.
LQD is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while IEMG is Emerging Markets Equities. LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index, while IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LQD and 0.09% for IEMG.
IEMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.21 vs 0.43), 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 IEMG
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