LQDH vs. LQD
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF (LQDH) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD).
LQDH and LQD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LQDH is an actively managed fund by iShares. It was launched on May 27, 2014. 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.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: LQDH or LQD.
Key characteristics
| LQDH | LQD | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 7.28% | 2.98% |
| 1Y Return | 10.51% | 12.92% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 5.23% | -3.03% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 4.46% | 0.61% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 3.56% | 2.62% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 3.73 | 1.55 |
| Sortino Ratio | 5.67 | 2.28 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.81 | 1.27 |
| Calmar Ratio | 5.81 | 0.60 |
| Martin Ratio | 29.35 | 5.59 |
| Ulcer Index | 0.36% | 2.11% |
| Daily Std Dev | 2.83% | 7.61% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.63% | -24.95% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | -9.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDH and LQD is 0.32, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
LQDH vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, LQDH achieves a 7.28% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's 2.98% return. Over the past 10 years, LQDH has outperformed LQD with an annualized return of 3.56%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively lower 2.62% 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.
LQDH vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDH has a 0.25% 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
LQDH vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF (LQDH) 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
LQDH vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
LQDH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.98%, more than LQD's 4.34% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDH iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF | 7.98% | 7.69% | 3.73% | 1.64% | 2.22% | 3.09% | 5.08% | 2.37% | 2.33% | 2.98% | 2.19% | 0.00% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.34% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% | 3.39% | 3.83% |
Drawdowns
LQDH vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDH drawdown since its inception was -24.63%, roughly equal to the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDH and LQD. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
LQDH vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF (LQDH) is 0.84%, while iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a volatility of 2.50%. This indicates that LQDH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.