LQDW vs. FLRT
LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) and FLRT (Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQDW is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while FLRT is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by Pacific Life. LQDW is passively managed, while FLRT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, LQDW returned 3.70%/yr vs 8.54%/yr for FLRT. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQDW charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for FLRT.
Performance
LQDW vs. FLRT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LQDW having a 1.88% return and FLRT slightly lower at 1.81%.
LQDW
- 1D
- 0.18%
- 1M
- 1.36%
- YTD
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 2.02%
- 1Y
- 6.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.70%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLRT
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 0.17%
- YTD
- 1.81%
- 6M
- 1.89%
- 1Y
- 5.54%
- 3Y*
- 8.54%
- 5Y*
- 5.95%
- 10Y*
- 4.90%
LQDW vs. FLRT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 1.88% | 9.05% | 2.60% | 3.99% | -6.78% |
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF | 1.81% | 6.24% | 9.18% | 14.59% | 0.08% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDW and FLRT is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2022 | 0.25 |
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
LQDW vs. FLRT — Risk / Return Rank
LQDW
FLRT
LQDW vs. FLRT - 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 Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT). 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.
| LQDW | FLRT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.84 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.82 | -0.46 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.52 | 3.13 | -0.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.34 | 11.44 | -2.09 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LQDW vs. FLRT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDW drawdown since its inception was -9.20%, smaller than the maximum FLRT drawdown of -20.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDW and FLRT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQDW | FLRT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.20% | -20.96% | +11.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.59% | -1.78% | -0.81% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.74% | -2.87% | -3.87% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -7.60% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -20.96% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.04% | -0.17% | +0.13% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.32% | -1.41% | -0.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.70% | 0.49% | +0.21% |
Volatility
LQDW vs. FLRT - Volatility Comparison
iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) has a higher volatility of 1.00% compared to Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) at 0.42%. This indicates that LQDW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQDW | FLRT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.00% | 0.42% | +0.58% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.12% | 1.23% | +1.89% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.62% | 1.59% | +2.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.47% | 2.30% | +3.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.47% | 6.12% | -0.65% |
LQDW vs. FLRT - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDW has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is lower than FLRT's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQDW vs. FLRT - Dividend Comparison
LQDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.49%, more than FLRT's 6.81% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF | 6.81% | 6.93% | 7.93% | 8.40% | 5.81% | 3.16% | 3.52% | 4.30% | 3.95% | 3.20% | 3.38% | 3.21% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.49% | 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
LQDW and FLRT have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LQDW has higher volatility (1.00%) compared to FLRT (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDW dropped -9.20% vs FLRT's -20.96%.
On 3-year performance, FLRT leads with 8.54% vs 3.70% for LQDW. On fees, LQDW is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, FLRT has performed better with a 8.54% return vs 3.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQDW is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for FLRT.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.49%, compared with 6.81% for FLRT.
LQDW is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while FLRT is High Yield Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Pacific Life. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for LQDW and 0.69% for FLRT.
FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 1.80), 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 LQDW and FLRT
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