QLTA vs. MYCF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QLTA (iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF) and MYCF (State Street My2026 Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. QLTA is passively managed, while MYCF is actively managed. Over the past year, QLTA returned 5.42% vs 4.60% for MYCF. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.15% expense ratio.

Performance

QLTA vs. MYCF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and State Street My2026 Corporate Bond ETF (MYCF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLTA achieves a 0.31% return, which is significantly lower than MYCF's 1.63% 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%

MYCF

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 2.04%
• 1Y: 4.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QLTA vs. MYCF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QLTA iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF	0.31%	7.36%	-3.89%
MYCF State Street My2026 Corporate Bond ETF	1.63%	5.12%	0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTA and MYCF is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2024	0.43

The correlation between QLTA and MYCF shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (1 year) to 0.43 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QLTA vs. MYCF — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTA

QLTA Risk / Return Rank: 35
QLTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
QLTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
QLTA Omega Ratio Rank: 32
QLTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
QLTA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

MYCF

MYCF Risk / Return Rank: 99
MYCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
MYCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
MYCF Omega Ratio Rank: 99
MYCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
MYCF Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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. MYCF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) and State Street My2026 Corporate Bond ETF (MYCF). 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	MYCF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	6.98	-5.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	13.23	-11.38
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	3.22	-2.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.94	38.53	-36.59
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.80	164.09	-158.29
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. MYCF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTA Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the MYCF Sharpe Ratio of 6.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTA and MYCF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QLTA	MYCF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.25	6.98	-5.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01	—	—
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	4.12	-3.73

Drawdowns

QLTA vs. MYCF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTA drawdown since its inception was -22.27%, which is greater than MYCF's maximum drawdown of -0.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTA and MYCF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTA	MYCF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.27%	-0.60%	-21.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.81%	-0.12%	-2.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.36%	—	—
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%	-0.03%	-4.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.94%	0.03%	+0.91%

Volatility

QLTA vs. MYCF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF (QLTA) has a higher volatility of 1.37% compared to State Street My2026 Corporate Bond ETF (MYCF) at 0.15%. This indicates that QLTA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MYCF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLTA	MYCF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.37%	0.15%	+1.22%
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%	0.66%	+3.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.22%	1.09%	+6.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.02%	1.09%	+5.93%

QLTA vs. MYCF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QLTA and MYCF 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. MYCF - Dividend Comparison

QLTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.47%, more than MYCF's 4.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MYCF State Street My2026 Corporate Bond ETF	4.40%	4.50%	1.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both QLTA and MYCF in my portfolio?

QLTA and MYCF have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLTA or MYCF?

QLTA has higher volatility (1.37%) compared to MYCF (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTA dropped -22.27% vs MYCF's -0.60%.

Which ETF is better, QLTA or MYCF?

On 1-year performance, QLTA leads with 5.42% vs 4.60% for MYCF. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, MYCF has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLTA or MYCF?

Over the 1-year period, QLTA has performed better with a 5.42% return vs 4.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLTA or MYCF?

QLTA and MYCF have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QLTA or MYCF?

QLTA has the higher dividend yield at 4.47%, compared with 4.40% for MYCF.

What is the main difference between QLTA and MYCF?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MYCF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.98 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.