QLTA vs. BNDW
QLTA (iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF) and BNDW (Vanguard Total World Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLTA is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index, while BNDW is a Global Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QLTA returned 0.10%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for BNDW. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QLTA charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for BNDW.
Performance
QLTA vs. BNDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QLTA achieves a 0.31% return, which is significantly lower than BNDW's 0.42% return.
QLTA
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- 0.50%
- YTD
- 0.31%
- 6M
- 0.04%
- 1Y
- 5.42%
- 3Y*
- 4.51%
- 5Y*
- 0.10%
- 10Y*
- 2.00%
BNDW
- 1D
- -0.26%
- 1M
- 0.44%
- YTD
- 0.42%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- 1Y
- 3.51%
- 3Y*
- 3.99%
- 5Y*
- 0.22%
- 10Y*
- —
QLTA vs. BNDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLTA iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF | 0.31% | 7.36% | 1.23% | 7.60% | -15.14% | -2.32% | 9.62% | 12.54% | 0.04% |
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF | 0.42% | 5.02% | 2.42% | 7.18% | -12.88% | -2.10% | 6.22% | 8.37% | 1.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between QLTA and BNDW is 0.92, 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 | 0.92 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.93 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 7, 2018 | 0.88 |
The correlation between QLTA and BNDW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - 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
QLTA vs. BNDW — Risk / Return Rank
QLTA
BNDW
QLTA vs. BNDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW). 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.
| QLTA | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.18 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.94 | 1.31 | +0.63 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.80 | 3.70 | +2.10 |
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
| QLTA | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.25 | 1.05 | +0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.01 | 0.04 | -0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.40 | 0.37 | +0.02 |
Drawdowns
QLTA vs. BNDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QLTA drawdown since its inception was -22.27%, which is greater than BNDW's maximum drawdown of -17.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTA and BNDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QLTA | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.27% | -17.22% | -5.05% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.81% | -2.70% | -0.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.66% | -4.27% | -2.39% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.36% | -16.93% | -4.43% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.27% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.41% | -1.53% | -1.88% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.68% | -4.98% | +0.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.94% | 0.95% | -0.01% |
Volatility
QLTA vs. BNDW - Volatility Comparison
iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and Vanguard Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) have volatilities of 1.37% and 1.31%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QLTA | BNDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.37% | 1.31% | +0.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.19% | 2.62% | +0.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.37% | 3.36% | +1.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.22% | 5.21% | +2.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.02% | 4.90% | +2.12% |
QLTA vs. BNDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
QLTA has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than BNDW's 0.05% 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
QLTA vs. BNDW - Dividend Comparison
QLTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.47%, more than BNDW's 4.21% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BNDW Vanguard Total World Bond ETF | 4.21% | 4.12% | 3.90% | 3.73% | 2.02% | 2.58% | 1.56% | 3.05% | 1.66% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QLTA iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF | 4.47% | 4.33% | 4.11% | 3.39% | 2.79% | 1.96% | 2.31% | 2.99% | 3.09% | 2.67% | 2.59% | 2.99% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.92, QLTA and BNDW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
QLTA has higher volatility (1.37%) compared to BNDW (1.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTA dropped -22.27% vs BNDW's -17.22%.
On 5-year performance, BNDW leads with 0.22% vs 0.10% for QLTA. On fees, BNDW is cheaper at 0.05% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, BNDW has performed better with a 0.22% return vs 0.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BNDW is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for QLTA.
QLTA has the higher dividend yield at 4.47%, compared with 4.21% for BNDW.
QLTA is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while BNDW is Global Bonds. QLTA tracks Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index, while BNDW tracks Bloomberg Global Aggregate Float Adjusted Composite Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QLTA and 0.05% for BNDW.
QLTA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 1.05), 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 QLTA and BNDW
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