LQD vs MINT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LQD and MINT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LQD is iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF, while MINT is PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund. LQD is broader by holdings count, with 3,158 positions versus 1,017 for MINT. MINT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has LQD ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 53.
What is the main difference between LQD and MINT?
LQD holds 3,158 positions to MINT's 1,017, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LQD | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.36% |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 1,017 |
| Top-10 concentration | 1.6% | 12.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.89% | 4.09% |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 1,768,362 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -8.2% | +0.1% |
| YTD return | -6.3% | +0.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -0.9% | +3.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 1.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -0.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -2.3% |
| Beta | 0.21 | 0.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | -3.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | -2.68 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF vs PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund
LQD leads
LQD leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support LQD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LQD over MINT, 65 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. LQD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LQD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions. LQD leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LQD vs MINT: 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 | MINT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.14% | 0.36% | LQD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,158 | 1,017 | LQD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 1.6% | 12.5% | LQD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.89% | 4.09% | LQD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -2.3% | MINT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 5.8% | 1.1% | MINT |
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 MINT 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.
- Momentum56 vs 41LQD +15
- Risk Resilience80 vs 66LQD +14
- Quality74 vs 63LQD +11
- Value55 vs 45LQD +10
3 of 4 evidence groups favor LQD. LQD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +4
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 MINT 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 momentum and risk resilience.
MINT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund): the counter-case, on 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 | LQD | MINT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.36% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 1,017 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 1,768,362 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 1.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -0.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | -3.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.21 | 0.00 | 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 MINT share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 1,012 holdings are unique to MINT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
MINT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 12.53% of the fund, against 1.62% for LQD (1,017 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 MINT doesn’t
| Holding | LQD | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MINT adds that LQD doesn’t
| Holding | MINT | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| US TREASURY N/B 06/31 4.125 4.13% 06/30/2031 | 5.76% | Not held |
| FANNIE MAE FNR 2025 18 FM 4.54% 09/25/2054 | 1% | Not held |
| FREDDIE MAC FHR 5513 MF 4.58% 11/25/2054 | 0.88% | Not held |
| SYNCHRONY BANK SR UNSECURED 08/27 5.625 5.63% 08/23/2027 | 0.79% | Not held |
| AT+T INC SR UNSECURED 08/28 VAR 4.30% 08/10/2028 | 0.74% | Not held |
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC SR UNSECURED 06/28 VAR 4.76% 06/09/2028 | 0.73% | 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 | 65 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | LQD | Value 55 vs 45 |
| Technicals | MINT | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs 0%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | LQD | Risk Resilience 80 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 LQD and MINT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LQD +12
- 65 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- LQD +12
- 62 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- LQD +3
- 59 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when LQD moved ahead of MINT.
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 / 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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MINT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
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 -0.01%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, 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.
- 1MINT closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to LQD's edge.
- 2MINT's 52-Week Low Proximity resolves — a bearish risk 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
MINT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LQD | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.2% | -0.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.8% | 0% |
| Year to date | -6.3% | 0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.2% | 0.1% |
Technicals
MINT has the stronger structure| Metric | LQD | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66 | 49.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.3 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 6.9% | 1.2% |
Risk
LQD is the more resilient| Metric | LQD | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.1 | -3.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | -2.68 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -0.6% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 1.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.6% | -0.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LQD and MINT?
LQD holds 3,158 positions to MINT's 1,017, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LQD and MINT overlap?
LQD and MINT share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 1,012 holdings are unique to MINT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LQD or MINT?
LQD holds more positions: 3,158 versus 1,017 for MINT.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
LQD has the lower expense ratio, 0.14% a year against 0.36% for MINT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
LQD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.89% against 4.09% for MINT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
LQD has been more volatile over the past year, at 5.8% annualized against 1.1% for MINT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
MINT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -2.3% against -24.5% for LQD.
Compare LQD and MINT 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.