PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MTUM vs. LQD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MTUM vs. LQD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MTUM achieves a 22.65% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's -1.41% return. Over the past 10 years, MTUM has outperformed LQD with an annualized return of 16.00%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively lower 2.06% annualized return.


MTUM

1D
-2.42%
1M
-9.70%
6M
20.16%
YTD
22.65%
1Y
27.88%
3Y*
28.98%
5Y*
13.15%
10Y*
16.00%
ALL TIME*
15.84%

LQD

1D
-0.03%
1M
-2.65%
6M
-1.99%
YTD
-1.41%
1Y
1.95%
3Y*
4.07%
5Y*
-1.00%
10Y*
2.06%
ALL TIME*
4.35%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$3.09B$3.13B$2.99B
$620.00M$622.73M$495.72M

MTUM vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
22.65%22.15%32.89%9.15%-18.27%13.36%29.86%27.25%-1.67%37.50%
LQD
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
-1.41%7.90%0.86%9.40%-17.92%-1.84%10.97%17.37%-3.79%7.06%

Correlation

The correlation between MTUM and LQD is 0.29, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.29

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.24

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.23

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2013

0.15

The correlation between MTUM and LQD shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (all time) to 0.29 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

MTUM vs. LQD — Risk / Return Rank

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

MTUM
MTUM Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
MTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 4646
Sortino Ratio Rank
MTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
MTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
MTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank

LQD
LQD Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
LQD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LQD Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
LQD Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
LQD Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
LQD Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

MTUM vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) 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.


MTUMLQDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.75

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.08

+0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.31

0.68

+1.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.45

1.76

+5.69

MTUM vs. LQD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MTUM Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is higher than the LQD Sharpe Ratio of 0.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MTUM and LQD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

MTUM vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MTUM drawdown since its inception was -34.08%, which is greater than LQD's maximum drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MTUM and LQD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MTUMLQDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.08%

-24.95%

-9.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.49%

-3.34%

-9.15%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.99%

-7.87%

-13.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.28%

-24.95%

-7.33%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.08%

-24.95%

-9.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.25%

-5.51%

-5.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.20%

-3.99%

-2.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.87%

1.30%

+2.57%

Volatility

MTUM vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a higher volatility of 11.65% compared to iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) at 1.28%. This indicates that MTUM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MTUMLQDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.65%

1.28%

+10.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

22.19%

4.02%

+18.17%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.47%

5.29%

+19.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.65%

8.64%

+13.01%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.60%

8.69%

+12.91%

MTUM vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MTUM and LQD have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

MTUM vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison

MTUM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, less than LQD's 4.65% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LQD
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
4.65%4.48%4.45%3.99%3.30%2.30%2.66%3.29%3.67%3.10%3.34%3.47%
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
0.60%0.91%0.75%1.35%1.80%0.55%0.83%1.48%1.27%1.02%1.43%1.12%

Frequently Asked Questions


MTUM and LQD have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MTUM has higher volatility (11.65%) compared to LQD (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MTUM dropped -34.08% vs LQD's -24.95%.

On 10-year performance, MTUM leads with 16.00% vs 2.06% for LQD. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, MTUM has performed better with a 16.00% return vs 2.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MTUM and LQD have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.65%, compared with 0.60% for MTUM.

MTUM is categorized as Momentum, while LQD is Corporate Bonds. MTUM tracks MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index, while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index.

MTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.18 vs 0.43), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MTUM 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