PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TLH vs. ZTEN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

TLH vs. ZTEN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLH) and F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TLH achieves a -0.51% return, which is significantly lower than ZTEN's 0.17% return.


TLH

1D
-0.38%
1M
0.62%
YTD
-0.51%
6M
-1.42%
1Y
5.33%
3Y*
0.59%
5Y*
-3.80%
10Y*
-0.83%

ZTEN

1D
-0.28%
1M
0.40%
YTD
0.17%
6M
0.05%
1Y
6.84%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TLH vs. ZTEN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
TLH
iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF
-0.51%6.47%-0.09%
ZTEN
F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
0.17%9.15%0.29%

Correlation

The correlation between TLH and ZTEN 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 Dec 20, 2024

0.90

The correlation between TLH and ZTEN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 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

TLH vs. ZTEN — Risk / Return Rank

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

TLH
TLH Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
TLH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TLH Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
TLH Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
TLH Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
TLH Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

ZTEN
ZTEN Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
ZTEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZTEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZTEN Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
ZTEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZTEN Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
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.

TLH vs. ZTEN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLH) and F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN). 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.


TLHZTENDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.24

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.82

2.07

-1.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.28

6.72

-4.44

TLH vs. ZTEN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TLH Sharpe Ratio is 0.67, which is lower than the ZTEN Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TLH and ZTEN, 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


TLHZTENDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.67

1.38

-0.71

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

1.15

-0.87

Drawdowns

TLH vs. ZTEN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TLH drawdown since its inception was -41.14%, which is greater than ZTEN's maximum drawdown of -3.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TLH and ZTEN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TLHZTENDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.14%

-3.43%

-37.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.50%

-3.32%

-3.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-29.82%

-1.46%

-28.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.76%

-0.78%

-9.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.35%

1.02%

+1.33%

Volatility

TLH vs. ZTEN - Volatility Comparison

iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLH) has a higher volatility of 2.46% compared to F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) at 1.61%. This indicates that TLH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZTEN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TLHZTENDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.46%

1.61%

+0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.49%

3.77%

+1.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.01%

4.99%

+3.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.70%

5.80%

+6.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.19%

5.80%

+5.39%

TLH vs. ZTEN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both TLH and ZTEN 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

TLH vs. ZTEN - Dividend Comparison

TLH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.48%, less than ZTEN's 5.08% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
TLH
iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF
4.48%4.17%4.28%3.83%2.78%1.50%2.65%2.31%2.17%1.83%1.91%2.13%
ZTEN
F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
5.08%5.16%0.44%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, TLH and ZTEN 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.

TLH has higher volatility (2.46%) compared to ZTEN (1.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TLH dropped -41.14% vs ZTEN's -3.43%.

On 1-year performance, ZTEN leads with 6.84% vs 5.33% for TLH. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, ZTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ZTEN has performed better with a 6.84% return vs 5.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

TLH and ZTEN have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

ZTEN has the higher dividend yield at 5.08%, compared with 4.48% for TLH.

TLH is categorized as Government Bonds, while ZTEN is Long-Term Bond. TLH tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 10-20 Year Bond Index, while ZTEN tracks ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m.

ZTEN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs 0.67), 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 TLH and ZTEN

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