PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QLTA vs. BSCQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLTA achieves a 0.31% return, which is significantly lower than BSCQ's 1.55% 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%

BSCQ

1D
0.08%
1M
0.34%
YTD
1.55%
6M
1.92%
1Y
4.41%
3Y*
5.06%
5Y*
1.47%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QLTA
iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF
0.31%7.36%1.23%7.60%-15.14%-2.32%9.62%12.54%-2.27%5.69%
BSCQ
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF
1.55%5.02%4.86%5.71%-8.31%-1.68%9.41%13.94%-2.40%5.93%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTA and BSCQ is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.06

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

0.58

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

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2016

0.70

Over the past year, the correlation between QLTA and BSCQ has dropped to 0.06 - well below their long-term average of 0.70, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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. BSCQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTA
QLTA Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
QLTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QLTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
QLTA Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
QLTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
QLTA Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank

BSCQ
BSCQ Risk / Return Rank: 9999
Overall Rank
BSCQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BSCQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
BSCQ Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
BSCQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
BSCQ Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
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.

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ). 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.


QLTABSCQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-5.81

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-13.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

3.45

-2.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

43.24

-41.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.80

179.65

-173.85

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTA Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the BSCQ Sharpe Ratio of 7.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTA and BSCQ, 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


QLTABSCQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.25

7.06

-5.81

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

0.45

-0.43

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

0.60

-0.21

Drawdowns

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTA drawdown since its inception was -22.27%, which is greater than BSCQ's maximum drawdown of -16.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTA and BSCQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QLTABSCQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.27%

-16.50%

-5.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.81%

-0.10%

-2.71%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.66%

-1.13%

-5.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.36%

-13.02%

-8.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.27%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.41%

0.00%

-3.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.68%

-2.85%

-1.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.94%

0.02%

+0.92%

Volatility

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Volatility Comparison

iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) has a higher volatility of 1.37% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ) at 0.17%. This indicates that QLTA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSCQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QLTABSCQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.37%

0.17%

+1.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.19%

0.43%

+2.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.37%

0.63%

+3.74%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.22%

3.30%

+3.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.02%

4.77%

+2.25%

QLTA vs. BSCQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTA has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than BSCQ's 0.10% 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. BSCQ - Dividend Comparison

QLTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.47%, more than BSCQ's 4.12% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BSCQ
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF
4.12%4.14%4.05%3.53%2.54%1.91%2.42%2.96%3.32%2.92%0.51%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


QLTA and BSCQ have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QLTA has higher volatility (1.37%) compared to BSCQ (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTA dropped -22.27% vs BSCQ's -16.50%.

On 5-year performance, BSCQ leads with 1.47% vs 0.10% for QLTA. On fees, BSCQ is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, BSCQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BSCQ has performed better with a 1.47% return vs 0.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BSCQ is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for QLTA.

QLTA has the higher dividend yield at 4.47%, compared with 4.12% for BSCQ.

QLTA tracks Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index, while BSCQ tracks NASDAQ BulletShares USD Corporate Bond 2026 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QLTA and 0.10% for BSCQ.

BSCQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.06 vs 1.25), 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 QLTA and BSCQ

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