IGSB vs USIG: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (IGSB) and iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (USIG) — 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
IGSB and USIG 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 — IGSB scores higher: 58.8 (Grade C) versus 57.1 for USIG. That doesn't make USIG a bad fund; it means IGSB 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
| IGSB | USIG | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Bonds - Corporate | US Bonds - Corporate |
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $22.3B | $17.6B |
| Dividend yield | 4.57% | 4.72% |
| 1-year return | +3.54% | +3.00% |
| 3-year return | +17.30% | +15.07% |
| Volatility | 1.96% | 4.09% |
| Max drawdown | -1.46% | -5.88% |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.75 | -0.49 |
| ETFValuer score | 58.8 | 57.1 |
| Grade | C | C |
| Overall rank | #263 | #297 |
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
On cost, the two are essentially tied — IGSB charges 0.04% a year versus USIG's 0.04%. A difference this small (about $0.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other.
What IGSB's Fees Cost You
IGSB charges an expense ratio of 0.04% 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, IGSB returned +17.30% versus +15.07% for USIG — a gap of about 2.2 percentage points. On risk, IGSB has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-1.46% vs. -5.88%). USIG currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of -0.49 vs. -0.75), 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), IGSB and USIG show a strong correlation of 0.900 — clearly related, with room to diverge. There is some genuine differentiation here, but not enough to call these complementary holdings. Pairing them mostly concentrates risk rather than spreading it.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.900 | Strong — clearly related, with room to diverge |
| R-squared | 80.9% | 80.9% of IGSB's daily moves are explained by USIG's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 3.61% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | IGSB +5.60% · USIG +4.91% | IGSB ahead by 0.69 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, IGSB finished as much as +3.0 points ahead of USIG at the best extreme and -5.6 points at the worst — a 8.5-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
IGSB and USIG hold 6 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 7.1% of IGSB and 9.9% of USIG. That's meaningful duplication. The funds aren't interchangeable, but a good share of your money would be riding on the same companies twice.
| Shared Holding | IGSB Weight | USIG Weight |
|---|---|---|
| BlackRock Funds III | 6.21% | 9.42% |
| EAGLE FUNDING LUXCO SARL | 0.31% | 0.08% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 0.12% | 0.20% |
| T-MOBILE USA INC | 0.18% | 0.07% |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORP | 0.16% | 0.09% |
| CVS HEALTH CORP | 0.13% | 0.08% |
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 IGSB if…
- It has been the calmer ride (2.0% volatility vs 4.1%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-1.5% vs -5.9%)
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 17.3% over 3 years against 15.1%
Lean USIG if…
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of -0.49 beats -0.75
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is IGSB or USIG better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — IGSB scores higher: 58.8 (Grade C) versus 57.1 for USIG. That doesn't make USIG a bad fund; it means IGSB 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, IGSB or USIG?
USIG currently has the lower expense ratio (0.04% vs. 0.04%).
Can I hold both IGSB and USIG?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.90, IGSB and USIG fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.