LQDW vs. LQD
LQDW (iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF) and LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds from iShares - LQDW tracks the CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index while LQD tracks the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LQDW returned 3.64%/yr vs 4.88%/yr for LQD. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LQDW charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LQD.
Performance
LQDW vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQDW achieves a 1.70% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's 0.61% return.
LQDW
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 1.18%
- YTD
- 1.70%
- 6M
- 1.70%
- 1Y
- 6.47%
- 3Y*
- 3.64%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LQD
- 1D
- -0.27%
- 1M
- 0.76%
- YTD
- 0.61%
- 6M
- 0.68%
- 1Y
- 5.23%
- 3Y*
- 4.88%
- 5Y*
- -0.24%
- 10Y*
- 2.46%
LQDW vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 1.70% | 9.05% | 2.60% | 3.99% | -6.78% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.61% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -4.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between LQDW and LQD is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2022 | 0.83 |
The correlation between LQDW and LQD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
LQDW
LQD
LQDW vs. LQD - 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 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.
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 | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.81 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.17 | +0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.51 | 1.57 | +0.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.31 | 4.40 | +4.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LQDW vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQDW drawdown since its inception was -9.20%, smaller than the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQDW and LQD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQDW | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.20% | -24.95% | +15.75% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.59% | -3.34% | +0.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.74% | -8.43% | +1.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -24.95% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.95% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.22% | -3.58% | +3.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.32% | -3.99% | +1.67% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.70% | 1.19% | -0.49% |
Volatility
LQDW vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (LQDW) is 0.99%, while iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a volatility of 1.43%. This indicates that LQDW 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQDW | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.99% | 1.43% | -0.44% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.12% | 3.99% | -0.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.63% | 5.33% | -1.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.47% | 8.65% | -3.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.47% | 8.69% | -3.22% |
LQDW vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQDW has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQDW vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
LQDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.52%, more than LQD's 4.56% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.56% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
LQDW iShares Investment Grade Corporate Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF | 12.52% | 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 LQD have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LQD has higher volatility (1.43%) compared to LQDW (0.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQDW dropped -9.20% vs LQD's -24.95%.
On 3-year performance, LQD leads with 4.88% vs 3.64% for LQDW. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LQDW has been the lower-risk option at 0.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, LQD has performed better with a 4.88% return vs 3.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for LQDW.
LQDW has the higher dividend yield at 12.52%, compared with 4.56% for LQD.
LQDW tracks CBOE LQD BuyWrite Index, while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for LQDW and 0.15% for LQD.
LQDW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs 0.99), 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 LQD
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