LQDW vs. FLRN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) and FLRN (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - LQDW tracks the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index while FLRN tracks the Bloomberg US Floating Rate Notes (<5 Y). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LQDW returned 3.79%/yr vs 5.67%/yr for FLRN. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQDW charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FLRN.

Performance

LQDW vs. FLRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQDW achieves a 1.25% return, which is significantly lower than FLRN's 1.87% return.

LQDW

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 1.25%
• 6M: 1.65%
• 1Y: 6.49%
• 3Y*: 3.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLRN

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 1.87%
• 6M: 2.19%
• 1Y: 4.88%
• 3Y*: 5.67%
• 5Y*: 4.19%
• 10Y*: 3.03%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LQDW vs. FLRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF	1.25%	9.05%	2.60%	3.99%	-6.78%
FLRN SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	1.87%	5.01%	6.32%	6.54%	1.61%

Correlation

The correlation between LQDW and FLRN is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2022	0.07

Return for Risk

LQDW vs. FLRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQDW

LQDW Risk / Return Rank: 54
LQDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
LQDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
LQDW Omega Ratio Rank: 61
LQDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
LQDW Martin Ratio Rank: 54

FLRN

FLRN Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

LQDW vs. FLRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN). 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.

	LQDW	FLRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	7.18	-5.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	13.18	-10.57
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	3.44	-2.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	21.54	-19.03
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.39	130.06	-120.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LQDW vs. FLRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQDW Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is lower than the FLRN Sharpe Ratio of 7.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQDW and FLRN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LQDW	FLRN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.85	7.18	-5.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	2.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.72	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.50	-0.04

Drawdowns

LQDW vs. FLRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQDW drawdown since its inception was -9.20%, smaller than the maximum FLRN drawdown of -14.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDW and FLRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQDW	FLRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.20%	-14.64%	+5.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.59%	-0.23%	-2.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.74%	-1.43%	-5.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-2.16%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.35%	0.00%	-0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.35%	-1.83%	-0.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.69%	0.04%	+0.65%

Volatility

LQDW vs. FLRN - Volatility Comparison

iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) has a higher volatility of 1.46% compared to SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN) at 0.15%. This indicates that LQDW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LQDW	FLRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.46%	0.15%	+1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.02%	0.52%	+2.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.53%	0.68%	+2.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.49%	1.69%	+3.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.49%	4.20%	+1.29%

LQDW vs. FLRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQDW has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than FLRN's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

LQDW vs. FLRN - Dividend Comparison

LQDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.57%, more than FLRN's 4.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRN SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	4.51%	4.89%	5.67%	5.68%	1.95%	0.39%	1.22%	2.76%	2.39%	1.64%	1.06%	0.63%
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF	12.57%	16.02%	15.74%	19.28%	8.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQDW and FLRN in my portfolio?

LQDW and FLRN have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LQDW or FLRN?

LQDW has higher volatility (1.46%) compared to FLRN (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDW dropped -9.20% vs FLRN's -14.64%.

Which ETF is better, LQDW or FLRN?

On 3-year performance, FLRN leads with 5.67% vs 3.79% for LQDW. On fees, FLRN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLRN has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQDW or FLRN?

Over the 3-year period, FLRN has performed better with a 5.67% return vs 3.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQDW or FLRN?

FLRN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LQDW or FLRN?

LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.57%, compared with 4.51% for FLRN.

What is the main difference between LQDW and FLRN?

LQDW tracks CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while FLRN tracks Bloomberg US Floating Rate Notes (<5 Y). They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for LQDW and 0.15% for FLRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.18 vs 1.85), 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.