QLTA vs. LQD
QLTA (iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF) and LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds from iShares - QLTA tracks the Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index while LQD tracks the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QLTA returned 2.02%/yr vs 2.55%/yr for LQD. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.15% expense ratio.
Performance
QLTA vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QLTA achieves a 0.50% return, which is significantly lower than LQD's 0.74% return. Over the past 10 years, QLTA has underperformed LQD with an annualized return of 2.02%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively higher 2.55% annualized return.
QLTA
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.42%
- YTD
- 0.50%
- 6M
- 0.45%
- 1Y
- 5.60%
- 3Y*
- 4.58%
- 5Y*
- 0.25%
- 10Y*
- 2.02%
LQD
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 0.67%
- YTD
- 0.74%
- 6M
- 0.47%
- 1Y
- 6.42%
- 3Y*
- 5.05%
- 5Y*
- 0.15%
- 10Y*
- 2.55%
QLTA vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLTA iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF | 0.50% | 7.36% | 1.23% | 7.60% | -15.14% | -2.32% | 9.62% | 12.54% | -2.27% | 5.69% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.74% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between QLTA and LQD is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 17, 2012 | 0.90 |
The correlation between QLTA and LQD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.99 - 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. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
QLTA
LQD
QLTA vs. LQD - 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 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.
| QLTA | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.29 | 1.20 | +0.08 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.91 | 1.77 | +0.14 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.21 | +0.02 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.91 | 1.83 | +0.07 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.74 | 5.26 | +0.47 |
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 | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.29 | 1.20 | +0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 | 0.02 | +0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | 0.29 | -0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.40 | 0.54 | -0.14 |
Drawdowns
QLTA vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QLTA drawdown since its inception was -22.27%, smaller than the maximum LQD drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTA and LQD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QLTA | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.27% | -24.95% | +2.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.81% | -3.34% | +0.53% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.66% | -8.43% | +1.77% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.36% | -24.95% | +3.59% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.27% | -24.95% | +2.68% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.23% | -3.45% | +0.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.68% | -3.99% | -0.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.94% | 1.16% | -0.22% |
Volatility
QLTA vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) is 1.38%, while iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a volatility of 1.66%. This indicates that QLTA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QLTA | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.38% | 1.66% | -0.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.21% | 3.92% | -0.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.38% | 5.36% | -0.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.22% | 8.65% | -1.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.02% | 8.68% | -1.66% |
QLTA vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both QLTA and LQD have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
QLTA vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
QLTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.46%, less than LQD's 4.56% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.56% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
QLTA iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF | 4.46% | 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 0.99, QLTA and LQD 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.
LQD has higher volatility (1.66%) compared to QLTA (1.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTA dropped -22.27% vs LQD's -24.95%.
On 10-year performance, LQD leads with 2.55% vs 2.02% for QLTA. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, QLTA has been the lower-risk option at 1.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, LQD has performed better with a 2.55% return vs 2.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QLTA and LQD have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.
LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.56%, compared with 4.46% for QLTA.
QLTA tracks Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index, while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index.
QLTA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 1.20), 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 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