HYG vs LQD: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) — both US Bonds - Corporate funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
HYG and LQD compete directly — both are US Bonds - Corporate funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — HYG scores higher: 56.3 (Grade C) versus 55.0 for LQD. That doesn't make LQD a bad fund; it means HYG currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| HYG | LQD | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Bonds - Corporate | US Bonds - Corporate |
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.14% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $17.6B | $33.1B |
| Dividend yield | 4.80% | 3.00% |
| 1-year return | +4.31% | +2.12% |
| 3-year return | +25.28% | +12.52% |
| Volatility | 3.84% | 5.29% |
| Max drawdown | -4.56% | -8.15% |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | -0.54 |
| ETFValuer score | 56.3 | 55.0 |
| Grade | C | C |
| Overall rank | #308 | #325 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
LQD is the cheaper fund, charging 0.14% a year versus 0.49% for HYG — a gap of 0.35 percentage points (about $35.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What HYG's Fees Cost You
HYG charges an expense ratio of 0.49% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, HYG returned +25.28% versus +12.52% for LQD — a gap of about 12.8 percentage points. On risk, HYG has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-4.56% vs. -8.15%). HYG currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of -0.18 vs. -0.54), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), HYG and LQD show a moderate correlation of 0.739 — related but meaningfully different. That's loose enough that the two funds do behave differently in a meaningful share of market conditions — holding both is defensible if you want exposure to each mandate.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.739 | Moderate — related but meaningfully different |
| R-squared | 54.7% | 54.7% of HYG's daily moves are explained by LQD's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 4.89% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | HYG +7.95% · LQD +4.09% | HYG ahead by 3.86 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, HYG finished as much as +7.8 points ahead of LQD at the best extreme and -1.4 points at the worst — a 9.2-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
HYG and LQD hold 1 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 12.7% of HYG and 7.2% of LQD. That's modest duplication — the funds are mostly distinct at the top, so holding both can still add diversification.
| Shared Holding | HYG Weight | LQD Weight |
|---|---|---|
| BlackRock Funds III | 12.69% | 7.23% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean HYG if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 4.80% against 3.00%
- It has been the calmer ride (3.8% volatility vs 5.3%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-4.6% vs -8.2%)
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of -0.18 beats -0.54
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 25.3% over 3 years against 12.5%
Lean LQD if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.14% vs 0.49%, about $35 a year less on a $10,000 position
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is HYG or LQD better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — HYG scores higher: 56.3 (Grade C) versus 55.0 for LQD. That doesn't make LQD a bad fund; it means HYG currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, HYG or LQD?
LQD currently has the lower expense ratio (0.14% vs. 0.49%).
Can I hold both HYG and LQD?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. HYG and LQD correlate at only 0.74 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.