PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QABA vs. IAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QABA vs. IAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund (QABA) and iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QABA achieves a 8.16% return, which is significantly higher than IAT's 2.80% return. Over the past 10 years, QABA has underperformed IAT with an annualized return of 6.80%, while IAT has yielded a comparatively higher 7.95% annualized return.


QABA

1D
-2.39%
1M
-0.32%
YTD
8.16%
6M
7.37%
1Y
18.48%
3Y*
17.46%
5Y*
3.09%
10Y*
6.80%

IAT

1D
-1.71%
1M
-1.74%
YTD
2.80%
6M
7.09%
1Y
22.99%
3Y*
22.20%
5Y*
1.35%
10Y*
7.95%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QABA vs. IAT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QABA
First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund
8.16%4.62%14.49%-2.18%-9.01%34.20%-10.70%22.85%-16.47%0.75%
IAT
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF
2.80%13.05%24.36%-8.53%-20.61%38.89%-7.60%31.38%-17.45%10.42%

Correlation

The correlation between QABA and IAT is 0.87, 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

0.87

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.90

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.91

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.92

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2009

0.90

The correlation between QABA and IAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

QABA vs. IAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QABA
IAT

Financial Services

99.7%
100.0%

Industrials

0.3%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

QABA
99.7%
IAT
100.0%

Industrials

QABA
0.3%
IAT

-

Basic Materials

QABA

-

IAT

-

Communication Services

QABA

-

IAT

-

Consumer Cyclical

QABA

-

IAT

-

Consumer Defensive

QABA

-

IAT

-

Energy

QABA

-

IAT

-

Healthcare

QABA

-

IAT

-

Real Estate

QABA

-

IAT

-

Technology

QABA

-

IAT

-

Utilities

QABA

-

IAT

-

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

QABA vs. IAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QABA
QABA Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
QABA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QABA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
QABA Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
QABA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
QABA Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

IAT
IAT Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
IAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAT Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
IAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAT Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
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.

QABA vs. IAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund (QABA) and iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT). 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.


QABAIATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.20

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.49

1.32

+0.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.69

3.38

+0.31

QABA vs. IAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QABA Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is comparable to the IAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QABA and IAT, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QABAIATDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.83

1.06

-0.23

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.12

0.05

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.24

0.26

-0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.34

0.10

+0.25

Drawdowns

QABA vs. IAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QABA drawdown since its inception was -49.30%, smaller than the maximum IAT drawdown of -77.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QABA and IAT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QABAIATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-49.30%

-77.22%

+27.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.49%

-17.49%

+5.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.82%

-29.29%

+3.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.93%

-55.55%

+12.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.30%

-55.55%

+6.25%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.25%

-9.75%

+5.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.43%

-26.97%

+15.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.02%

6.81%

-1.79%

Volatility

QABA vs. IAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund (QABA) is 5.63%, while iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) has a volatility of 6.12%. This indicates that QABA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QABAIATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.63%

6.12%

-0.49%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.22%

15.74%

-0.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.50%

21.86%

+0.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.50%

29.03%

-2.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

28.69%

30.78%

-2.09%

QABA vs. IAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QABA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IAT's 0.42% expense ratio.


Dividends

QABA vs. IAT - Dividend Comparison

QABA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.40%, less than IAT's 2.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAT
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF
2.88%2.94%2.95%3.56%3.12%1.88%2.87%2.49%2.48%1.55%1.52%1.78%
QABA
First Trust NASDAQ ABA Community Bank Index Fund
2.40%2.52%2.37%2.71%2.10%1.68%2.55%1.95%1.90%1.42%1.13%1.39%

Frequently Asked Questions


QABA and IAT have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IAT has higher volatility (6.12%) compared to QABA (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QABA dropped -49.30% vs IAT's -77.22%.

On 10-year performance, IAT leads with 7.95% vs 6.80% for QABA. On fees, IAT is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, QABA has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IAT has performed better with a 7.95% return vs 6.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IAT is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QABA.

IAT has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 2.40% for QABA.

QABA tracks NASDAQ OMX ABA Community Bank Index, while IAT tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QABA and 0.42% for IAT.

IAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.06 vs 0.83), 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 QABA and IAT

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