LQDH vs. IWM
LQDH (iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQDH is a Corporate Bonds fund actively managed by iShares, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. LQDH is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LQDH returned 4.64%/yr vs 10.97%/yr for IWM. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQDH charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
LQDH vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQDH achieves a 2.31% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.84% return. Over the past 10 years, LQDH has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 4.64%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.97% annualized return.
LQDH
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 1.09%
- YTD
- 2.31%
- 6M
- 3.00%
- 1Y
- 7.55%
- 3Y*
- 8.05%
- 5Y*
- 5.28%
- 10Y*
- 4.64%
IWM
- 1D
- 1.51%
- 1M
- 3.34%
- YTD
- 18.84%
- 6M
- 16.56%
- 1Y
- 41.60%
- 3Y*
- 19.00%
- 5Y*
- 6.43%
- 10Y*
- 10.97%
LQDH vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDH iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF | 2.31% | 7.00% | 7.43% | 11.14% | -1.88% | 1.84% | 1.68% | 9.50% | -2.20% | 6.00% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 18.84% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDH and IWM is 0.52, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2014 | 0.41 |
The correlation between LQDH and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (all time) to 0.52 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
LQDH vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
LQDH
IWM
LQDH vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF (LQDH) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.
| LQDH | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.62 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.56 | 1.36 | +0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.23 | 3.79 | -0.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.73 | 13.45 | +0.28 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LQDH | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.80 | 2.18 | +0.62 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.20 | 0.29 | +0.92 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.72 | 0.48 | +0.25 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.58 | 0.37 | +0.22 |
Drawdowns
LQDH vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDH drawdown since its inception was -24.63%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDH and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQDH | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.63% | -59.05% | +34.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.34% | -11.03% | +8.69% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.86% | -27.50% | +22.64% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -7.08% | -31.91% | +24.83% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.63% | -41.13% | +16.50% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.09% | -0.01% | -0.08% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.68% | -10.77% | +9.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.55% | 3.10% | -2.55% |
Volatility
LQDH vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF (LQDH) is 0.49%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.70%. This indicates that LQDH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQDH | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.49% | 5.70% | -5.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.03% | 13.60% | -11.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.70% | 19.19% | -16.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.41% | 22.53% | -18.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.44% | 23.04% | -16.60% |
LQDH vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDH has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% 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
LQDH vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
LQDH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.95%, more than IWM's 0.87% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.87% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
LQDH iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF | 5.95% | 6.06% | 7.57% | 7.69% | 3.73% | 1.65% | 2.22% | 3.09% | 5.08% | 2.37% | 2.33% | 2.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LQDH and IWM have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (5.70%) compared to LQDH (0.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDH dropped -24.63% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.97% vs 4.64% for LQDH. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, LQDH has been the lower-risk option at 0.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 10.97% return vs 4.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for LQDH.
LQDH has the higher dividend yield at 5.95%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.
LQDH is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LQDH and 0.19% for IWM.
LQDH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.18), 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 LQDH and IWM
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