FBND vs HYG ETF Comparison
Compare FBND and HYG across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between FBND and HYG?
FBND is Fidelity Total Bond ETF, while HYG is iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF. FBND is tied to Equity; HYG is tied to Fixed Income. HYG is broader by holdings count, with 1,321 positions versus 5 for FBND. FBND has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | FBND | HYG | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.49% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $27.1B | $15.5B | Fund |
| Holdings | 5 | 1,321 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 0% | - | Fund |
| Average volume | 2,161,598 | 53,077,159 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Fixed Income | Fund |
| 1Y return | -2.3% | -1.5% | Performance |
| YTD return | -2.9% | -1.8% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 3.9% | 4.2% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -4.8% | -3.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.22 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.68 | -1.34 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -2.54 | -1.82 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 31/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 94/100 | 84/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity Total Bond ETF vs iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
HYG leads
HYG leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support HYG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity Total Bond ETF
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HYG over FBND, 59 versus 53 as of Sep 5, 2026. HYG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while FBND holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HYG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor HYG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. HYG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fidelity Total Bond ETF and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare FBND and HYG against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value30%36 vs 55HYG +19
- Risk Resilience15%94 vs 84FBND +10
- Quality30%66 vs 73HYG +7
- Momentum25%35 vs 31FBND +4
2 of 4 evidence groups favor HYG. HYG’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; FBND keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
HYG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FBND and HYG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HYG (iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
FBND (Fidelity Total Bond ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
HYGHYG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
HYGHYG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
FBNDFBND on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
FBNDFBND on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | FBND | HYG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.49% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $27.1B | $15.5B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 2,742 | 1,321 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,161,598 | 53,077,159 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3.9% | 4.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -4.8% | -3.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.68 | -1.34 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.22 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, FBND or HYG?
HYG currently has more reported holdings, with 1,321 positions versus 5.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FBND has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
HYG has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
HYG has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
HYG currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 59 to 53.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor HYG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HYG | 53 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | HYG | Value 36 vs 55 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -2.3% vs -1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FBND | Risk Resilience 94 vs 84 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FBND and HYG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on HYG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3HYG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HYG +6
- 53 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- HYG +13
- 54 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- HYG +9
- 55 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- HYG +11
- 56 vs 67
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.46%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.65%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
HYG leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.06%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1FBND closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to HYG's edge.
- 2FBND's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HYG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate HYG's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
HYG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FBND | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | -0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.3% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | -2.9% | -1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.3% | -1.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FBND | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11.1 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.3% | -1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.5% | 4% |
Risk
FBND is the more resilient| Metric | FBND | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.68 | -1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.54 | -1.82 |
| Max drawdown | -4.8% | -3.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.6% | -2.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.9% | 4.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FBND or HYG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HYG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against FBND's 53. The edge comes from value and quality. FBND is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is FBND or HYG the better buy right now?
HYG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HYG over FBND?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HYG leads Value by 19 points; FBND leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; HYG leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, FBND or HYG?
HYG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HYG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, FBND or HYG?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, FBND or HYG?
FBND on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, FBND or HYG?
FBND is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FBND on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FBND more profitable than HYG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is HYG's lead over FBND getting stronger or weaker?
HYG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FBND vs HYG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FBND closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to HYG's edge; FBND's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HYG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate HYG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FBND and HYG?
FBND: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. HYG: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on FBND is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HYG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FBND and HYG with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.