PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
USIC.L vs. FLOS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor ESG USD Corporate Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (USIC.L) and iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

USIC.L is traded in USD, while FLOS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FLOS.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USIC.L achieves a -0.20% return, which is significantly lower than FLOS.L's 2.53% return.


USIC.L

1D
0.20%
1M
-0.59%
6M
-0.39%
YTD
-0.20%
1Y
4.65%
3Y*
4.65%
5Y*
0.05%
10Y*

FLOS.L

1D
-0.41%
1M
0.68%
6M
2.84%
YTD
2.53%
1Y
5.02%
3Y*
6.49%
5Y*
3.58%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
USIC.L
Lyxor ESG USD Corporate Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc
-0.20%7.41%2.38%8.08%-15.02%-0.30%
FLOS.L
iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
2.53%12.69%4.47%11.59%-9.95%-2.73%

Correlation

The correlation between USIC.L and FLOS.L is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.26

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2021

0.26

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

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

USIC.L
USIC.L Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
USIC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
USIC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
USIC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
USIC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
USIC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3838
Martin Ratio Rank

FLOS.L
FLOS.L Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
FLOS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLOS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
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.

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor ESG USD Corporate Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (USIC.L) and iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L). 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.


USIC.LFLOS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.13

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.60

1.11

+0.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.82

2.60

+2.22

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USIC.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is higher than the FLOS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USIC.L and FLOS.L, 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...

Drawdowns

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USIC.L drawdown since its inception was -21.41%, smaller than the maximum FLOS.L drawdown of -30.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USIC.L and FLOS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


USIC.LFLOS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.41%

-30.24%

+8.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.83%

-4.48%

+1.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.87%

-7.75%

+1.88%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.41%

-23.39%

+1.98%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.27%

-0.73%

-0.54%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.13%

-6.48%

-1.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.94%

1.93%

-0.99%

Volatility

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor ESG USD Corporate Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (USIC.L) is 1.17%, while iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist) (FLOS.L) has a volatility of 1.69%. This indicates that USIC.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLOS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


USIC.LFLOS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.17%

1.69%

-0.52%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.54%

5.23%

-1.69%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.65%

6.80%

-2.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.59%

8.72%

-0.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.58%

9.62%

-1.04%

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

USIC.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is higher than FLOS.L's 0.12% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

USIC.L vs. FLOS.L - Dividend Comparison

USIC.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLOS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.68%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
FLOS.L
iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Dist)
4.68%5.02%5.93%5.46%1.50%0.57%1.62%2.95%2.27%
USIC.L
Lyxor ESG USD Corporate Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


USIC.L and FLOS.L have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLOS.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLOS.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.14% for USIC.L.

USIC.L is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while FLOS.L is Ultra Short-Term Bonds. USIC.L tracks Bloomberg US Corp Bond TR USD, while FLOS.L tracks Bloomberg US Floating Rate Note <5 Years Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for USIC.L and 0.12% for FLOS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for USIC.L and FLOS.L

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