IGSB vs ISTB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IGSB and ISTB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IGSB is iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF, while ISTB is iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF. ISTB is broader by holdings count, with 7,428 positions versus 4,710 for IGSB. ISTB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IGSB ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 50.
What is the main difference between IGSB and ISTB?
ISTB puts 99% of its assets in Utilities, while IGSB spreads across 20 sectors with none above 29%.
| Metric | IGSB | ISTB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 4,710 | 7,428 |
| Top-10 concentration | 1.5% | 8.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.69% | 4.37% |
| Average volume | 3,477,112 | 531,852 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -3.4% | -3.4% |
| YTD return | -3% | -3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +2.5% | +1.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 2.5% | 2.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4.1% | -3.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -9.1% | -8.8% |
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.92 | -3.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.33 | -3.64 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 47/100 | 46/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF vs iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF
IGSB leads
IGSB leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IGSB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IGSB over ISTB, 54 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. IGSB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. IGSB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IGSB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. IGSB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF and iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IGSB vs ISTB: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | IGSB | ISTB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.06% | IGSB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 4,710 | 7,428 | ISTB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 1.5% | 8.7% | IGSB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.69% | 4.37% | IGSB |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -9.1% | -8.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 2.5% | 2.3% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare IGSB and ISTB 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.
- Quality66 vs 55IGSB +11
- Momentum47 vs 46Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
- Risk Resilience77 vs 77Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IGSB. IGSB’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
IGSB's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IGSB and ISTB both carry a full feed there.
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 | IGSB | ISTB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 4,710 | 7,428 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,477,112 | 531,852 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 2.5% | 2.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4.1% | -3.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.92 | -3.15 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.06 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
IGSB and ISTB share 24.25% of their weighted exposure across 4,271 common holdings.
436 holdings are unique to IGSB, and 3,143 holdings are unique to ISTB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ISTB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 8.69% of the fund, against 1.48% for IGSB (7,428 holdings vs 4,710). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | IGSB | ISTB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| T-MOBILE USA INC 3.88% 04/15/2030 | 0.17% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (FXD-FRN) 4.15% 01/21/2029 | 0.1% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (FXD-FRN) 4.52% 01/21/2032 | 0.11% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES COR 144A 5.35% 07/15/2031 | 0.15% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORP 3.42% 12/20/2028 | 0.14% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORP MTN 5.20% 04/25/2029 | 0.1% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| WELLS FARGO & COMPANY MTN 5.57% 07/25/2029 | 0.1% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| AMGEN INC 5.15% 03/02/2028 | 0.1% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IGSB adds that ISTB doesn’t
| Holding | IGSB | ISTB |
|---|---|---|
| EAGLE FUNDING LUXCO S. R.L. 144A 5.50% 08/17/2030 | 0.29% | Not held |
| T-MOBILE USA INC 3.88% 04/15/2030 | 0.17% | 0.04% |
| SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES COR 144A 5.35% 07/15/2031 | 0.15% | 0.04% |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORP 3.42% 12/20/2028 | 0.14% | 0.04% |
| AMAZON.COM INC 4.25% 03/13/2031 | 0.13% | 0.03% |
| ABBVIE INC 3.20% 11/21/2029 | 0.12% | 0.03% |
What ISTB adds that IGSB doesn’t
| Holding | ISTB | IGSB |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY NOTE 3.88% 06/15/2028 | 1.08% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE (2OLD) 4.13% 06/30/2031 | 1.04% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.00% 02/28/2030 | 0.89% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 3.63% 10/31/2030 | 0.88% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE (OLD) 4.38% 07/31/2031 | 0.85% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 3.50% 11/30/2030 | 0.83% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IGSB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IGSB | 54 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -1.9% vs -1.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 vs 77 |
| 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 IGSB and ISTB 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 IGSB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IGSB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IGSB +4
- 54 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- IGSB +4
- 53 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- IGSB +3
- 48 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- IGSB +2
- 52 vs 50
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.
IGSB and ISTB carry the same 5 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
IGSB 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 -0.02%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, 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.
- 1ISTB closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to IGSB's edge.
- 2ISTB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IGSB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
ISTB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IGSB | ISTB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.5% | -1.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.5% | -2.5% |
| Year to date | -3% | -3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.4% | -3.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IGSB | ISTB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.3 | 54.5 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 32.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.9% | -1.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.6% | 2.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IGSB | ISTB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.92 | -3.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.33 | -3.64 |
| Max drawdown | -4.1% | -3.9% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 2.5% | 2.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IGSB and ISTB?
ISTB puts 99% of its assets in Utilities, while IGSB spreads across 20 sectors with none above 29%.
How much do IGSB and ISTB overlap?
IGSB and ISTB share 24.25% of their weighted exposure across 4,271 common holdings. 436 holdings are unique to IGSB, and 3,143 holdings are unique to ISTB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IGSB or ISTB?
ISTB holds more positions: 7,428 versus 4,710 for IGSB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IGSB has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.06% for ISTB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IGSB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.69% against 4.37% for ISTB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 2.5% annualized for IGSB and 2.3% for ISTB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -9.1% for IGSB and -8.8% for ISTB.
Compare IGSB and ISTB with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.