JAAA vs LQD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
JAAA and LQD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. JAAA is Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF, while LQD is iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF. LQD is broader by holdings count, with 3,158 positions versus 611 for JAAA. JAAA is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has LQD ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 61.
What is the main difference between JAAA and LQD?
LQD holds 3,158 positions to JAAA's 611, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | JAAA | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.14% |
| Holdings | 611 | 3,158 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.7% | 1.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.84% | 4.89% |
| Average volume | 6,301,791 | 30,291,886 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +0% | -8.2% |
| YTD return | +0% | -6.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.1% | -0.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.5% | 5.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.9% | -9.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -2.6% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.59 | -2.10 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.98 | -2.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 65/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 78/100 | 56/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF vs iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
LQD leads
LQD leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from JAAA.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support LQD, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LQD over JAAA, 65 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. LQD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while JAAA holds the stronger momentum profile. LQD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LQD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. LQD lead: Reversed — JAAA led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LQD now leads by 4.
Compare Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
JAAA vs LQD: 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 | JAAA | LQD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.2% | 0.14% | LQD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 611 | 3,158 | LQD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.7% | 1.6% | LQD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.84% | 4.89% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -2.6% | -24.5% | JAAA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.5% | 5.8% | 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 JAAA and LQD 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.
- Momentum78 vs 56JAAA +22
- Value36 vs 55LQD +19
- Risk Resilience66 vs 80LQD +14
- Quality69 vs 74LQD +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor LQD. LQD’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; JAAA keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +47
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
LQD's lead narrowed by 10 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JAAA and LQD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
JAAA (Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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 | JAAA | LQD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.14% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 611 | 3,158 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,301,791 | 30,291,886 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.5% | 5.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -0.9% | -9.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.59 | -2.10 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.21 | 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
JAAA and LQD share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
608 holdings are unique to JAAA, and 3,156 holdings are unique to LQD. 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 1.62% for LQD (611 holdings vs 3,158). 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 JAAA adds that LQD doesn’t
| Holding | JAAA | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What LQD adds that JAAA doesn’t
| Holding | LQD | JAAA |
|---|---|---|
| ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES LLC 4.90% 02/01/2046 | 0.19% | Not held |
| T-MOBILE USA INC 3.88% 04/15/2030 | 0.18% | Not held |
| CVS HEALTH CORP 5.05% 03/25/2048 | 0.18% | Not held |
| SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES COR 144A 5.35% 07/15/2031 | 0.17% | Not held |
| META PLATFORMS INC 4.88% 11/15/2035 | 0.16% | Not held |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC/THE 6.75% 10/01/2037 | 0.15% | 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LQD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LQD | 61 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | LQD | Value 36 vs 55 |
| Technicals | JAAA | Price vs 50-day 0% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 0% vs -4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LQD | Risk Resilience 66 vs 80 |
| 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 JAAA and LQD 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)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 LQD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LQD lead: Reversed — JAAA led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LQD now leads by 4.
- Today
- LQD +4
- 61 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- LQD +14
- 48 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- JAAA +4
- 61 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- LQD +4
- 55 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when LQD moved ahead of JAAA.
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.
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
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only LQD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.38%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
LQD 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 +12 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.01%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1JAAA closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to LQD's edge.
- 2JAAA's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3LQD'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
JAAA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JAAA | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.2% | -1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | -3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | -5.8% |
| Year to date | 0% | -6.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0% | -8.2% |
Technicals
JAAA has the stronger structure| Metric | JAAA | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 93.3 | 66 |
| ADX (14) | 18.3 | 31.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0% | -4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.5% | 6.9% |
Risk
LQD is the more resilient| Metric | JAAA | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.59 | -2.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.98 | -2.96 |
| Max drawdown | -0.9% | -9.8% |
| Current drawdown | -0.4% | -8.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.5% | 5.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.2% | -0.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between JAAA and LQD?
LQD holds 3,158 positions to JAAA's 611, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do JAAA and LQD overlap?
JAAA and LQD share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 608 holdings are unique to JAAA, and 3,156 holdings are unique to LQD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, JAAA or LQD?
LQD holds more positions: 3,158 versus 611 for JAAA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
LQD has the lower expense ratio, 0.14% a year against 0.2% for JAAA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 4.84% for JAAA and 4.89% for LQD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
LQD has been more volatile over the past year, at 5.8% 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 -24.5% for LQD.
Compare JAAA and LQD 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.