Skip to content

LQD vs. IWP: What’s The Difference?

The iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and the iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) are both among the Top 100 ETFs. LQD is a iShares Corporate Bond fund and IWP is a iShares Mid-Cap Growth fund. So, what’s the difference between LQD and IWP? And which fund is better?

The expense ratio of LQD is 0.10 percentage points lower than IWP’s (0.14% vs. 0.24%). LQD is mostly comprised of BBB bonds while IWP has a high exposure to the technology sector. Overall, LQD has provided lower returns than IWP over the past ten years.

In this article, we’ll compare LQD vs. IWP. We’ll look at fund composition and holdings, as well as at their annual returns and portfolio growth. Moreover, I’ll also discuss LQD’s and IWP’s industry exposure, risk metrics, and performance and examine how these affect their overall returns.

TIP: Keep track of all your investments with Personal Capital. I use this amazing tool to aggregate all investments in one place and make sure I'm on track to financial freedom. Oh, and did I mention it's free? Try it out here (link to Personal Capital).

Summary

LQDIWP
NameiShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETFiShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
CategoryCorporate BondMid-Cap Growth
IssueriSharesiShares
AUM40.23B15.7B
Avg. Return6.58%16.75%
Div. Yield2.48%0.26%
Expense Ratio0.14%0.24%

The iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) is a Corporate Bond fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 40.23B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 6.58% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 2.48% with an expense ratio of 0.14%.

The iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) is a Mid-Cap Growth fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 15.7B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 16.75% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.26% with an expense ratio of 0.24%.

LQD’s dividend yield is 2.22% higher than that of IWP (2.48% vs. 0.26%). Also, LQD yielded on average 10.17% less per year over the past decade (6.58% vs. 16.75%). The expense ratio of LQD is 0.10 percentage points lower than IWP’s (0.14% vs. 0.24%).

FYI: The best way I've found to invest in ETFs is through M1 Finance. It's free and you even get an instant line of credit! Have a look here (link to M1 Finance).

Fund Composition

Holdings

LQD - Holdings

LQD Bond SectorsWeight
BBB50.92%
A37.97%
AA8.49%
AAA2.7%
BB0.05%
Below B0.0%
B0.0%
US Government0.0%
Others-0.13%

LQD’s Top Bond Sectors are ratings of BBB, A, AA, AAA, and BB at 50.92%, 37.97%, 8.49%, 2.7%, and 0.05%. The fund is less weighted towards Below B (0.0%), B (0.0%), and US Government (0.0%) rated bonds.

IWP - Holdings

IWP HoldingsWeight
IDEXX Laboratories Inc1.3%
DocuSign Inc1.3%
Roku Inc Class A1.29%
Match Group Inc1.06%
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc1.06%
Pinterest Inc1.05%
Veeva Systems Inc Class A1.04%
Palantir Technologies Inc Ordinary Shares – Class A1.04%
Lululemon Athletica Inc1.01%
DexCom Inc1.0%

IWP’s Top Holdings are IDEXX Laboratories Inc, DocuSign Inc, Roku Inc Class A, Match Group Inc, and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc at 1.3%, 1.3%, 1.29%, 1.06%, and 1.06%.

Pinterest Inc (1.05%), Veeva Systems Inc Class A (1.04%), and Palantir Technologies Inc Ordinary Shares – Class A (1.04%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. Lululemon Athletica Inc and DexCom Inc are also represented in the IWP’s holdings at 1.01% and 1.0%.

NOTE: The easiest way to add diversification to your portfolio is to invest in real estate through Fundrise. You can become private real estate investor without the burden of property management! Check it out here (link to Fundrise).

Risk Analysis

LQDIWP
Mean Return0.471.27
R-squared66.9387.01
Std. Deviation5.9416.05
Alpha0.52-1.03
Beta1.621.1
Sharpe Ratio0.850.91
Treynor Ratio3.0812.98

The iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) has a Standard Deviation of 5.94 with a Mean Return of 0.47 and a Treynor Ratio of 3.08. Its Alpha is 0.52 while LQD’s Beta is 1.62. Furthermore, the fund has a Sharpe Ratio of 0.85 and a R-squared of 66.93.

The iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a Mean Return of 1.27 with a Beta of 1.1 and a Standard Deviation of 16.05. Its Alpha is -1.03 while IWP’s Sharpe Ratio is 0.91. Furthermore, the fund has a R-squared of 87.01 and a Treynor Ratio of 12.98.

LQD’s Mean Return is 0.80 points lower than that of IWP and its R-squared is 20.08 points lower. With a Standard Deviation of 5.94, LQD is slightly less volatile than IWP. The Alpha and Beta of LQD are 1.55 points higher and 0.52 points higher than IWP’s Alpha and Beta.

FYI: Another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector is by investing in real estate debt. Groundfloor offers fantastic short-term, high-yield bonds that can add diversification to your portfolio!

Performance

Annual Returns

LQD vs. IWP - Annual Returns

YearLQDIWP
202011.14%35.29%
201917.13%35.14%
2018-3.76%-4.95%
20177.16%24.98%
20165.97%7.15%
2015-1.08%-0.39%
20148.57%11.68%
2013-2.49%35.44%
201211.68%15.62%
20118.89%-1.82%
20109.15%26.1%

LQD had its best year in 2019 with an annual return of 17.13%. LQD’s worst year over the past decade yielded -3.76% and occurred in 2018. In most years the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF provided moderate returns such as in 2017, 2014, and 2011 where annual returns amounted to 7.16%, 8.57%, and 8.89% respectively.

The year 2013 was the strongest year for IWP, returning 35.44% on an annual basis. The poorest year for IWP in the last ten years was 2018, with a yield of -4.95%. Most years the iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF has given investors modest returns, such as in 2014, 2012, and 2017, when gains were 11.68%, 15.62%, and 24.98% respectively.

Portfolio Growth

LQD vs. IWP - Portfolio Growth

FundInitial BalanceFinal BalanceCAGR
LQD$10,000$19,7766.58%
IWP$10,000$50,19116.75%

A $10,000 investment in LQD would have resulted in a final balance of $19,776. This is a profit of $9,776 over 11 years and amounts to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.58%.

With a $10,000 investment in IWP, the end total would have been $50,191. This equates to a $40,191 profit over 11 years and a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.75%.

LQD’s CAGR is 10.17 percentage points lower than that of IWP and as a result, would have yielded $30,415 less on a $10,000 investment. Thus, LQD performed worse than IWP by 10.17% annually.


Current recommendations:

Over the past years, I have discovered several tools and products that have helped me tremendously on my path to financial freedom:

P.S.: The links below are affiliate links, which means I receive a small commission at no extra cost to you when you sign up for one of the services. Thank you for your support!

1)Personal Capital is simply the best tool out there to track your net worth and plan for financial freedom. Just their retirement planner alone has become an invaluable tool to keep myself on track financially. Try it out, it's free!

2) Take a look at M1 Finance, my favorite broker. I love how easy it is to invest and maintain my portfolio with them. I can set up automatic transfers, rebalance my portfolio with one click and even borrow up to 35% of my assets at super low interest rates!

3) Fundrise is by far the best way I've found to invest in Real Estate. You can diversify your portfolio by investing in their eREITs or even allocate capital to individual properties (without the hassle of managing tenants!).

4) Groundfloor is another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector by investing in short-term, high-yield real estate debt. Current returns are >10% and you can get started with just $10.

5) If you are interested in startup investing, check out Mainvest. I've started allocating a small amount of assets to invest in and support small businesses. Return targets are between 10-25% and you can start with just $100!

To see all of my most up-to-date recommendations, check out the Recommended Tools section.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.