LQD vs MBB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LQD and MBB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LQD is iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF, while MBB is iShares MBS ETF. MBB is broader by holdings count, with 11,209 positions versus 3,158 for LQD. MBB 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 LQD and MBB?
MBB holds 11,209 positions to LQD's 3,158, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LQD | MBB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 11,209 |
| Top-10 concentration | 1.6% | 5.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.89% | 4.5% |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 3,855,988 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -8.2% | -5.6% |
| YTD return | -6.3% | -5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -0.9% | -0.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 5.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -8.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -16.8% |
| Beta | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | -1.90 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | -2.68 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF vs iShares MBS ETF
LQD leads
LQD leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support LQD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
iShares MBS ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LQD over MBB, 65 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. LQD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MBB holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LQD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF and iShares MBS ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LQD vs MBB: 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 | LQD | MBB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.14% | 0.04% | MBB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,158 | 11,209 | MBB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 1.6% | 5.8% | LQD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.89% | 4.5% | LQD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -16.8% | MBB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 5.8% | 5.1% | 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 LQD and MBB 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.
- Value55 vs 45LQD +10
- Risk Resilience80 vs 87MBB +7
- Quality74 vs 68LQD +6
- Momentum56 vs 55Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor LQD. LQD’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MBB 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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
LQD's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LQD and MBB 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 quality.
MBB (iShares MBS 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 | LQD | MBB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 11,209 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 3,855,988 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 5.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -8.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | -1.90 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.21 | 0.16 | 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
LQD and MBB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 11,154 holdings are unique to MBB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
MBB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 5.82% of the fund, against 1.62% for LQD (11,209 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 LQD adds that MBB doesn’t
| Holding | LQD | MBB |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What MBB adds that LQD doesn’t
| Holding | MBB | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| FHLMC 30YR UMBS SUPER 2.00% 05/01/2051 | 0.87% | Not held |
| UMBS 30YR TBA(REG A) 5.50% 10/13/2026 | 0.79% | Not held |
| UMBS 30YR TBA(REG A) 5.00% 10/13/2026 | 0.67% | Not held |
| GNMA2 30YR TBA(REG C) 5.50% 09/21/2026 | 0.63% | Not held |
| GNMA2 30YR TBA(REG C) 6.00% 09/21/2026 | 0.56% | Not held |
| GNMA2 30YR TBA(REG C) 5.00% 09/21/2026 | 0.49% | 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
2 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 | 65 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | LQD | Value 55 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -1%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs -3.7% |
| Risk Resilience | MBB | Risk Resilience 80 vs 87 |
| 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 LQD and MBB 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 2 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 LQD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LQD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LQD +4
- 65 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- LQD +4
- 62 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- LQD +4
- 57 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- LQD +4
- 59 vs 55
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.
LQD and MBB carry the same 6 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, 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 -0.01%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1MBB closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to LQD's edge.
- 2MBB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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
MBB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LQD | MBB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.2% | -2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.8% | -4.8% |
| Year to date | -6.3% | -5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.2% | -5.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | LQD | MBB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66 | 64.7 |
| ADX (14) | 31.3 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | -3.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 6.9% | 7% |
Risk
MBB is the more resilient| Metric | LQD | MBB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.1 | -1.9 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | -2.68 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -8.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -6.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 5.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.6% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LQD and MBB?
MBB holds 11,209 positions to LQD's 3,158, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LQD and MBB overlap?
LQD and MBB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 11,154 holdings are unique to MBB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LQD or MBB?
MBB holds more positions: 11,209 versus 3,158 for LQD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MBB has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.14% for LQD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
LQD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.89% against 4.5% for MBB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 5.8% annualized for LQD and 5.1% for MBB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
MBB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -16.8% against -24.5% for LQD.
Compare LQD and MBB 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.