PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares $ Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD Distributing (LQDE.L) and iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

LQDE.L is traded in USD, while FLOS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FLOS.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQDE.L achieves a -0.98% return, which is significantly lower than FLOS.L's 2.53% return.


LQDE.L

1D
-0.17%
1M
-1.24%
6M
-1.08%
YTD
-0.98%
1Y
4.36%
3Y*
4.45%
5Y*
-0.71%
10Y*
2.12%

FLOS.L

1D
-0.41%
1M
0.68%
6M
2.84%
YTD
2.53%
1Y
5.02%
3Y*
6.49%
5Y*
3.58%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LQDE.L
iShares $ Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD Distributing
-0.98%8.09%1.06%9.14%-17.81%-2.04%10.98%17.87%-3.94%1.44%
FLOS.L
iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
2.53%12.69%4.47%11.59%-9.95%-0.80%3.25%6.53%-6.08%4.73%

Correlation

The correlation between LQDE.L and FLOS.L is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.25

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.26

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2017

0.18

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

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

LQDE.L
LQDE.L Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
LQDE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LQDE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
LQDE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
LQDE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
LQDE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

FLOS.L
FLOS.L Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
FLOS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD Distributing (LQDE.L) and iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L). 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.


LQDE.LFLOS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.13

1.13

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.35

1.11

+0.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.50

2.60

+0.90

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQDE.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is comparable to the FLOS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQDE.L and FLOS.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQDE.L drawdown since its inception was -29.86%, roughly equal to the maximum FLOS.L drawdown of -30.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDE.L and FLOS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LQDE.LFLOS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.86%

-30.24%

+0.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.21%

-4.48%

+1.27%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.93%

-7.75%

-0.18%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.11%

-23.39%

-1.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.94%

-0.73%

-4.21%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.78%

-6.48%

+1.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.24%

1.93%

-0.69%

Volatility

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares $ Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD Distributing (LQDE.L) is 1.47%, while iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L) has a volatility of 1.69%. This indicates that LQDE.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLOS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LQDE.LFLOS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.47%

1.69%

-0.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.35%

5.23%

-0.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.76%

6.80%

-1.04%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.46%

8.72%

-0.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.67%

9.62%

-0.95%

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQDE.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than FLOS.L's 0.12% 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

LQDE.L vs. FLOS.L - Dividend Comparison

LQDE.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.06%, more than FLOS.L's 4.68% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLOS.L
iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
4.68%5.02%5.93%5.46%1.50%0.57%1.62%2.95%2.27%0.00%0.00%0.00%
LQDE.L
iShares $ Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD Distributing
5.06%4.89%5.02%4.58%3.74%2.68%2.77%3.42%3.69%3.25%3.40%3.36%

Frequently Asked Questions


LQDE.L and FLOS.L have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLOS.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLOS.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for LQDE.L.

LQDE.L is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while FLOS.L is Ultra Short-Term Bonds. LQDE.L tracks Morningstar US Corporate Bond TR USD, while FLOS.L tracks Bloomberg US Floating Rate Note <5 Years Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LQDE.L and 0.12% for FLOS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LQDE.L and FLOS.L

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