LQD vs. PCL
LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and PCL (PGIM Corporate Bond 10+ Year ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. LQD is passively managed, while PCL is actively managed. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. LQD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for PCL.
Performance
LQD vs. PCL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a 1.27% return, which is significantly lower than PCL's 2.77% return.
LQD
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 1.04%
- YTD
- 1.27%
- 6M
- 0.85%
- 1Y
- 5.30%
- 3Y*
- 5.07%
- 5Y*
- -0.09%
- 10Y*
- 2.49%
PCL
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- 1.83%
- YTD
- 2.77%
- 6M
- 2.02%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LQD vs. PCL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 1.27% | 3.29% |
PCL PGIM Corporate Bond 10+ Year ETF | 2.77% | 2.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQD and PCL is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2025 | 0.97 |
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. PCL — Risk / Return Rank
LQD
PCL
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
LQD vs. PCL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and PGIM Corporate Bond 10+ Year ETF (PCL). 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 | PCL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.59 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.44 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LQD vs. PCL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, which is greater than PCL's maximum drawdown of -5.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and PCL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQD | PCL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.95% | -5.14% | -19.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.34% | — | — |
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 | -2.94% | -0.22% | -2.72% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -1.71% | -2.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.20% | — | — |
Volatility
LQD vs. PCL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQD | PCL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.44% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.00% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.32% | 7.83% | -2.51% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.65% | 7.83% | +0.82% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.69% | 7.83% | +0.86% |
LQD vs. PCL - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PCL's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. PCL - Dividend Comparison
LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.53%, less than PCL's 5.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.53% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
PCL PGIM Corporate Bond 10+ Year ETF | 5.24% | 2.52% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, LQD and PCL move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for PCL.
PCL has the higher dividend yield at 5.24%, compared with 4.53% for LQD.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LQD and 0.25% for PCL.
Find the right allocation for LQD and PCL
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