SCYB vs. FALN
SCYB (Schwab High Yield Bond ETF) and FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds - SCYB tracks the ICE BofA US Cash Pay High Yield Constrained Index while FALN tracks the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, SCYB returned 6.69% vs 7.88% for FALN. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SCYB charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FALN.
Performance
SCYB vs. FALN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SCYB achieves a 1.92% return, which is significantly lower than FALN's 2.24% return.
SCYB
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.50%
- YTD
- 1.92%
- 6M
- 2.07%
- 1Y
- 6.69%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FALN
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 1.07%
- YTD
- 2.24%
- 6M
- 2.46%
- 1Y
- 7.88%
- 3Y*
- 9.39%
- 5Y*
- 3.76%
- 10Y*
- 6.60%
SCYB vs. FALN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SCYB Schwab High Yield Bond ETF | 1.92% | 8.33% | 8.15% | 7.29% |
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF | 2.24% | 8.92% | 7.68% | 8.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between SCYB and FALN is 0.91, 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 | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2023 | 0.91 |
The correlation between SCYB and FALN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.91 - 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
SCYB vs. FALN — Risk / Return Rank
SCYB
FALN
SCYB vs. FALN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB) and iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| SCYB | FALN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.33 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.75 | 2.00 | +0.75 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.23 | 8.32 | +3.90 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SCYB vs. FALN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SCYB drawdown since its inception was -4.92%, smaller than the maximum FALN drawdown of -29.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCYB and FALN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SCYB | FALN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.92% | -29.22% | +24.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.44% | -3.96% | +1.52% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -5.92% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.78% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -29.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.15% | -0.11% | -0.04% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.51% | -3.31% | +2.80% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.55% | 0.95% | -0.40% |
Volatility
SCYB vs. FALN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB) is 1.00%, while iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) has a volatility of 1.18%. This indicates that SCYB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FALN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SCYB | FALN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.00% | 1.18% | -0.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.02% | 3.73% | -0.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.79% | 4.60% | -0.81% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.12% | 7.33% | -2.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.12% | 8.94% | -3.82% |
SCYB vs. FALN - Expense Ratio Comparison
SCYB has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than FALN's 0.25% 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
SCYB vs. FALN - Dividend Comparison
SCYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.91%, more than FALN's 6.42% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF | 6.42% | 6.31% | 6.24% | 5.37% | 5.08% | 3.40% | 5.14% | 5.35% | 5.97% | 6.98% | 3.55% |
SCYB Schwab High Yield Bond ETF | 6.91% | 6.99% | 7.06% | 3.36% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, SCYB and FALN 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.
FALN has higher volatility (1.18%) compared to SCYB (1.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCYB dropped -4.92% vs FALN's -29.22%.
On 1-year performance, FALN leads with 7.88% vs 6.69% for SCYB. On fees, SCYB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, SCYB has been the lower-risk option at 1.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FALN has performed better with a 7.88% return vs 6.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCYB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for FALN.
SCYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.91%, compared with 6.42% for FALN.
SCYB tracks ICE BofA US Cash Pay High Yield Constrained Index, while FALN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for SCYB and 0.25% for FALN.
SCYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.72), 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 SCYB and FALN
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