IUSB vs JAAA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IUSB and JAAA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IUSB is iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF, while JAAA is Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF. IUSB is broader by holdings count, with 18,133 positions versus 611 for JAAA. JAAA is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has JAAA ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 60.
What is the main difference between IUSB and JAAA?
IUSB holds 18,133 positions to JAAA's 611, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IUSB | JAAA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.2% |
| Holdings | 18,133 | 611 |
| Top-10 concentration | 3.5% | 6.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.37% | 4.84% |
| Average volume | 5,777,905 | 6,301,791 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -5.5% | +0% |
| YTD return | -4.6% | +0% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0% | +5.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 4% | 1.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -0.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.4% | -2.6% |
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.36 | -2.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.31 | -1.98 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 78/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 92/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF vs Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF
JAAA leads
JAAA leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support JAAA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF
Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JAAA over IUSB, 61 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. JAAA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while IUSB holds the stronger risk resilience profile. JAAA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor JAAA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. JAAA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF and Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IUSB vs JAAA: 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 | IUSB | JAAA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.06% | 0.2% | IUSB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 18,133 | 611 | IUSB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 3.5% | 6.7% | IUSB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.37% | 4.84% | JAAA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.4% | -2.6% | JAAA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 4% | 1.5% | JAAA |
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 IUSB and JAAA 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.
- Risk Resilience92 vs 66IUSB +26
- Momentum56 vs 78JAAA +22
- Quality70 vs 69Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor JAAA. JAAA’s edge is concentrated in momentum; IUSB keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +47
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
The lead changed hands: JAAA moved ahead of IUSB in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IUSB and JAAA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JAAA (Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
IUSB (iShares Core Universal USD Bond ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | IUSB | JAAA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.2% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 18,133 | 611 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,777,905 | 6,301,791 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 4% | 1.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -0.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.36 | -2.59 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.01 | 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
IUSB and JAAA share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
18,109 holdings are unique to IUSB, and 608 holdings are unique to JAAA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
JAAA is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 6.73% of the fund, against 3.45% for IUSB (611 holdings vs 18,133). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What IUSB adds that JAAA doesn’t
| Holding | IUSB | JAAA |
|---|---|---|
| TREASURY NOTE 4.00% 11/15/2035 | 0.45% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.25% 05/15/2035 | 0.35% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.38% 12/31/2029 | 0.35% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE (OLD) 4.38% 05/15/2036 | 0.34% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE (2OLD) 4.13% 06/30/2031 | 0.34% | Not held |
| TREASURY NOTE 4.25% 11/15/2034 | 0.33% | Not held |
What JAAA adds that IUSB doesn’t
| Holding | JAAA | IUSB |
|---|---|---|
| KKR CLO 35 AR 4.92921% 20-JAN-2038, 4.93%, 01/20/38 | 0.8% | Not held |
| AB BSL CLO 1 A1R2 5.00292% 15-OCT-2038, 5.00%, 10/15/38 | 0.74% | Not held |
| Oaktree CLO 2019-4 AR3 4.95921% 20-JUL-2037, 4.96%, 07/20/37 | 0.72% | Not held |
| Madison Park Funding XXXI Ltd|4.98208|07/23/2037, 4.98%, 07/23/3 | 0.7% | Not held |
| Anchorage Capital Clo 16 Ltd|4.97921|01/19/2038, 4.98%, 01/19/38 | 0.68% | Not held |
| Palmer Square CLO 2018- AB FLTG 37, 5.00%, 04/16/37 | 0.64% | 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 JAAA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | JAAA | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs 0%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | IUSB | Risk Resilience 92 vs 66 |
| 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 IUSB and JAAA 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 JAAA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JAAA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JAAA +1
- 60 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- IUSB +9
- 57 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- JAAA +9
- 52 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- JAAA +1
- 54 vs 55
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when JAAA moved ahead of IUSB.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IUSB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.33%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only JAAA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.00%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JAAA 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 +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ +12 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.
- 1IUSB closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to JAAA's edge.
- 2IUSB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JAAA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate JAAA'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
JAAA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IUSB | JAAA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.2% | 0% |
| Year to date | -4.6% | 0% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.5% | 0% |
Technicals
JAAA has the stronger structure| Metric | IUSB | JAAA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67 | 93.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.2% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.9% | 1.5% |
Risk
IUSB is the more resilient| Metric | IUSB | JAAA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.36 | -2.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.31 | -1.98 |
| Max drawdown | -7% | -0.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5.9% | -0.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 4% | 1.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.5% | -0.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IUSB and JAAA?
IUSB holds 18,133 positions to JAAA's 611, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IUSB and JAAA overlap?
IUSB and JAAA share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 18,109 holdings are unique to IUSB, and 608 holdings are unique to JAAA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IUSB or JAAA?
IUSB holds more positions: 18,133 versus 611 for JAAA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IUSB has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.2% for JAAA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
JAAA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.84% against 4.37% for IUSB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IUSB has been more volatile over the past year, at 4% annualized against 1.5% for JAAA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
JAAA fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -2.6% against -17.4% for IUSB.
Compare IUSB and JAAA 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.