LQD vs. IGSB
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and iShares Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGSB).
LQD and IGSB are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LQD is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. It was launched on Jul 26, 2002. IGSB is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the ICE BofAML 1-5 Year US Corporate Index. It was launched on Jan 11, 2007. Both LQD and IGSB are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: LQD or IGSB.
Key characteristics
| LQD | IGSB | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -2.12% | 0.79% |
| 1Y Return | 2.66% | 4.58% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -3.56% | 0.20% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 1.09% | 1.98% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 2.28% | 1.81% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.25 | 1.42 |
| Daily Std Dev | 8.89% | 2.99% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.95% | -13.38% |
| Current Drawdown | -13.80% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQD and IGSB is 0.56, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Performance
LQD vs. IGSB - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a -2.12% return, which is significantly lower than IGSB's 0.79% return. Over the past 10 years, LQD has outperformed IGSB with an annualized return of 2.28%, while IGSB has yielded a comparatively lower 1.81% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LQD vs. IGSB - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than IGSB's 0.06% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
LQD vs. IGSB - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and iShares Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGSB). 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.
Dividends
LQD vs. IGSB - Dividend Comparison
LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.31%, more than IGSB's 3.56% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.31% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% | 3.39% | 3.83% |
IGSB iShares Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF | 3.56% | 3.26% | 2.06% | 1.82% | 2.36% | 3.06% | 2.46% | 1.65% | 1.45% | 1.18% | 0.94% | 1.17% |
Drawdowns
LQD vs. IGSB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, which is greater than IGSB's maximum drawdown of -13.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and IGSB. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
LQD vs. IGSB - Volatility Comparison
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a higher volatility of 2.55% compared to iShares Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGSB) at 0.88%. This indicates that LQD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.