SXR5.DE vs. LQD
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (SXR5.DE) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD).
SXR5.DE and LQD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. SXR5.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Japan. It was launched on Jan 11, 2010. LQD is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. It was launched on Jul 26, 2002. Both SXR5.DE and LQD are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: SXR5.DE or LQD.
Correlation
The correlation between SXR5.DE and LQD is 0.09, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
SXR5.DE vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
SXR5.DE:
0.52
LQD:
0.71
SXR5.DE:
0.81
LQD:
1.05
SXR5.DE:
1.11
LQD:
1.12
SXR5.DE:
0.70
LQD:
0.31
SXR5.DE:
2.41
LQD:
1.94
SXR5.DE:
3.73%
LQD:
2.51%
SXR5.DE:
17.18%
LQD:
6.83%
SXR5.DE:
-28.03%
LQD:
-24.95%
SXR5.DE:
-0.94%
LQD:
-9.67%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SXR5.DE achieves a 3.29% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's 1.69% return. Over the past 10 years, SXR5.DE has outperformed LQD with an annualized return of 8.09%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively lower 2.19% annualized return.
SXR5.DE
3.29%
2.72%
5.43%
7.36%
7.23%
8.09%
LQD
1.69%
1.48%
-1.40%
4.97%
-0.57%
2.19%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
SXR5.DE vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
SXR5.DE has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than LQD's 0.15% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
SXR5.DE vs. LQD — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
SXR5.DE
LQD
SXR5.DE vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (SXR5.DE) 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.
Dividends
SXR5.DE vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
SXR5.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.39%.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SXR5.DE iShares MSCI Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.39% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% | 3.39% |
Drawdowns
SXR5.DE vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SXR5.DE drawdown since its inception was -28.03%, which is greater than LQD's maximum drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SXR5.DE and LQD. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
SXR5.DE vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (SXR5.DE) has a higher volatility of 2.99% compared to iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) at 1.73%. This indicates that SXR5.DE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.