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

Performance

QLC vs. LQD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) 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, QLC achieves a 11.97% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's 0.80% return. Over the past 10 years, QLC has outperformed LQD with an annualized return of 15.08%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively lower 2.52% annualized return.


QLC

1D
1.63%
1M
3.02%
YTD
11.97%
6M
12.35%
1Y
33.81%
3Y*
24.25%
5Y*
15.50%
10Y*
15.08%

LQD

1D
-0.02%
1M
1.43%
YTD
0.80%
6M
1.10%
1Y
5.78%
3Y*
4.95%
5Y*
-0.10%
10Y*
2.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QLC vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QLC
FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund
11.97%23.26%26.71%26.02%-17.21%28.46%13.64%24.51%-8.12%21.73%
LQD
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
0.80%7.90%0.86%9.40%-17.92%-1.84%10.97%17.37%-3.79%7.06%

Correlation

The correlation between QLC and LQD is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.42

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

0.33

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

0.31

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

0.20

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2015

0.19

Over the past year, QLC and LQD have become more correlated (0.42) than their long-term average of 0.19, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

QLC vs. LQD — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLC
QLC Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank

LQD
LQD Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
LQD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LQD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
LQD Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
LQD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
LQD Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
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.

QLC vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) 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.


QLCLQDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.54

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.97

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.19

+0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.84

1.74

+2.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.56

4.88

+12.67

QLC vs. LQD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLC Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is higher than the LQD Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLC 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

QLC vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLC drawdown since its inception was -35.86%, which is greater than LQD's maximum drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLC and LQD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QLCLQDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.86%

-24.95%

-10.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.84%

-3.34%

-5.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.49%

-8.43%

-10.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.81%

-24.95%

+1.14%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.86%

-24.95%

-10.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.22%

-3.39%

+3.17%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.53%

-3.99%

-0.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.93%

1.19%

+0.74%

Volatility

QLC vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison

FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) has a higher volatility of 4.70% compared to iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) at 1.78%. This indicates that QLC'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


QLCLQDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.70%

1.78%

+2.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.29%

4.02%

+6.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.90%

5.32%

+7.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.92%

8.65%

+8.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.46%

8.69%

+9.77%

QLC vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLC has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

QLC vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison

QLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than LQD's 4.55% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LQD
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
4.55%4.48%4.45%3.99%3.30%2.30%2.66%3.29%3.67%3.10%3.34%3.47%
QLC
FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund
0.87%0.94%1.03%1.26%1.46%0.96%1.40%1.91%1.82%1.29%1.80%0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions


QLC and LQD have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QLC has higher volatility (4.70%) compared to LQD (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLC dropped -35.86% vs LQD's -24.95%.

On 10-year performance, QLC leads with 15.08% vs 2.52% for LQD. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QLC has performed better with a 15.08% return vs 2.52%. 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 0.25% for QLC.

LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.55%, compared with 0.87% for QLC.

QLC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while LQD is Corporate Bonds. QLC tracks Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index, while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for QLC and 0.15% for LQD.

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 1.09), 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 QLC 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