LQDW vs. IAU
LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) and IAU (iShares Gold Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - LQDW is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LQDW returned 3.79%/yr vs 31.29%/yr for IAU. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQDW charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IAU.
Performance
LQDW vs. IAU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQDW achieves a 1.25% return, which is significantly lower than IAU's 2.98% return.
LQDW
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.83%
- YTD
- 1.25%
- 6M
- 1.65%
- 1Y
- 6.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.79%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IAU
- 1D
- -0.98%
- 1M
- -1.62%
- YTD
- 2.98%
- 6M
- 5.50%
- 1Y
- 32.20%
- 3Y*
- 31.29%
- 5Y*
- 18.32%
- 10Y*
- 13.31%
LQDW vs. IAU - 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% |
IAU iShares Gold Trust | 2.98% | 63.95% | 26.85% | 12.84% | 5.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDW and IAU is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2022 | 0.24 |
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. IAU — Risk / Return Rank
LQDW
IAU
LQDW vs. IAU - 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 iShares Gold Trust (IAU). 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 | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.62 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.00 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.24 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.51 | 1.69 | +0.83 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.39 | 4.19 | +5.21 |
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
| LQDW | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.85 | 1.23 | +0.62 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.03 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.84 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.46 | 0.62 | -0.16 |
Drawdowns
LQDW vs. IAU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDW drawdown since its inception was -9.20%, smaller than the maximum IAU drawdown of -45.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDW and IAU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQDW | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.20% | -45.14% | +35.94% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.59% | -19.18% | +16.59% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.74% | -19.18% | +12.44% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -20.93% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -21.82% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.35% | -17.70% | +17.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.35% | -15.96% | +13.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.69% | 7.71% | -7.02% |
Volatility
LQDW vs. IAU - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) is 1.46%, while iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a volatility of 5.50%. This indicates that LQDW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQDW | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.46% | 5.50% | -4.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.02% | 23.02% | -20.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.53% | 26.42% | -22.89% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.49% | 17.95% | -12.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.49% | 15.90% | -10.41% |
LQDW vs. IAU - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDW has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than IAU's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQDW vs. IAU - Dividend Comparison
LQDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.57%, while IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IAU iShares Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.57% | 16.02% | 15.74% | 19.28% | 8.85% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LQDW and IAU have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IAU has higher volatility (5.50%) compared to LQDW (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDW dropped -9.20% vs IAU's -45.14%.
On 3-year performance, IAU leads with 31.29% vs 3.79% for LQDW. On fees, IAU is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LQDW has been the lower-risk option at 1.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, IAU has performed better with a 31.29% return vs 3.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IAU is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.57%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.
LQDW is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while IAU is Gold. LQDW tracks CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for LQDW and 0.25% for IAU.
LQDW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 1.23), 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 IAU
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