PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
QLTA vs. EFAV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

QLTA vs. EFAV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QLTA (iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF) and EFAV (iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLTA is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index, while EFAV is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QLTA returned 2.00%/yr vs 5.93%/yr for EFAV. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QLTA charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for EFAV.

Performance

QLTA vs. EFAV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV). 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 EFAV's 3.83% return. Over the past 10 years, QLTA has underperformed EFAV with an annualized return of 2.00%, while EFAV has yielded a comparatively higher 5.93% annualized 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%

EFAV

1D
-0.68%
1M
-1.10%
YTD
3.83%
6M
5.18%
1Y
9.41%
3Y*
12.87%
5Y*
6.17%
10Y*
5.93%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QLTA vs. EFAV - 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%
EFAV
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF		3.83%26.00%5.30%12.52%-15.11%7.20%-0.06%16.67%-5.74%22.24%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTA and EFAV is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.51

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

0.47

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

0.41

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

0.29

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 17, 2012

0.17

Over the past year, QLTA and EFAV have become more correlated (0.51) than their long-term average of 0.17, 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.

iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF

iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF

Often compared with QLTA:
QLTA vs. BNDQLTA vs. VCITQLTA vs. LQDQLTA vs. VTCQLTA vs. AGGQLTA vs. QQQQLTA vs. SCHG
Often compared with EFAV:
EFAV vs. EFVEFAV vs. EFAEFAV vs. ACWVEFAV vs. EEMVEFAV vs. USMVEFAV vs. EFASEFAV vs. SPLV

Return for Risk

QLTA vs. EFAV — 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
EFAV
EFAV Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
EFAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFAV Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
EFAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFAV Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
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. EFAV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV). 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.

QLTAEFAVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.25
0.92

+0.33

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.85
1.33

+0.51

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.17

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

1.46

+0.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.80

4.10

+1.69

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QLTA vs. EFAV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTA Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is higher than the EFAV Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTA and EFAV, 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

QLTAEFAVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.25

0.92

+0.33

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

0.53

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.29

0.45

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.40

0.53

-0.13

Drawdowns

QLTA vs. EFAV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTA drawdown since its inception was -22.27%, smaller than the maximum EFAV drawdown of -27.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTA and EFAV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QLTAEFAVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.27%

-27.56%

+5.29%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.81%

-6.46%

+3.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.66%

-8.75%

+2.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.36%

-27.46%

+6.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.27%

-27.56%

+5.29%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.41%

-5.61%

+2.20%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.68%

-4.77%

+0.09%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.94%

2.30%

-1.36%

Volatility

QLTA vs. EFAV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) is 1.37%, while iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF (EFAV) has a volatility of 3.17%. This indicates that QLTA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFAV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

QLTAEFAVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.37%

3.17%

-1.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.19%

8.17%

-4.98%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.37%

10.35%

-5.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.22%

11.79%

-4.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.02%

13.21%

-6.19%

QLTA vs. EFAV - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTA has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAV's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. EFAV - Dividend Comparison

QLTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.47%, more than EFAV's 3.08% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFAV
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol EAFE ETF		3.08%3.20%3.24%3.08%2.53%2.47%1.33%4.19%3.34%2.45%3.94%2.49%
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 EFAV have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EFAV has higher volatility (3.17%) compared to QLTA (1.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTA dropped -22.27% vs EFAV's -27.56%.

On 10-year performance, EFAV leads with 5.93% vs 2.00% for QLTA. On fees, QLTA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QLTA has been the lower-risk option at 1.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EFAV has performed better with a 5.93% return vs 2.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QLTA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for EFAV.

QLTA has the higher dividend yield at 4.47%, compared with 3.08% for EFAV.

QLTA is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while EFAV is Foreign Large Cap Equities. QLTA tracks Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index, while EFAV tracks MSCI EAFE Minimum Volatility Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QLTA and 0.20% for EFAV.

QLTA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 0.92), 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 EFAV

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