LQDA.L vs. LQD
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares USD Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (Acc) (LQDA.L) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD).
LQDA.L and LQD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LQDA.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD. It was launched on Apr 13, 2017. 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. Both LQDA.L and LQD 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: LQDA.L or LQD.
Key characteristics
| LQDA.L | LQD | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 2.59% | 2.78% |
| 1Y Return | 11.95% | 12.14% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -2.76% | -2.64% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 0.43% | 0.50% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.58 | 1.68 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.37 | 2.49 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.29 | 1.30 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.66 | 0.66 |
| Martin Ratio | 5.95 | 6.01 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.05% | 2.11% |
| Daily Std Dev | 7.72% | 7.54% |
| Max Drawdown | -25.10% | -24.95% |
| Current Drawdown | -9.56% | -9.48% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDA.L and LQD is 0.70, 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
LQDA.L vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, LQDA.L achieves a 2.59% return, which is significantly lower than LQD's 2.78% 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.
LQDA.L vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% 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
LQDA.L vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (Acc) (LQDA.L) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). 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
LQDA.L vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
LQDA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.35%.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDA.L iShares USD Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 | 4.35% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% | 3.39% | 3.83% |
Drawdowns
LQDA.L vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDA.L drawdown since its inception was -25.10%, roughly equal to the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDA.L and LQD. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
LQDA.L vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
iShares USD Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (Acc) (LQDA.L) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) have volatilities of 2.46% and 2.51%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.