LQD vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LQD and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LQD is iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. LQD is broader by holdings count, with 3,158 positions versus 508 for VOO. VOO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has LQD ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 64.
What is the main difference between LQD and VOO?
LQD holds 3,158 positions to VOO's 508, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LQD | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 1.6% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.89% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 7,814,237 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -8.2% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | -6.3% | +12.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -0.9% | +12.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
LQD leads
LQD leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VOO.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support LQD, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LQD over VOO, 65 versus 64 as of Oct 21, 2026. LQD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while VOO holds the stronger momentum profile. LQD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LQD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. LQD lead: Reversed — VOO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LQD now leads by 1.
Compare iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LQD vs VOO: 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 | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.14% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,158 | 508 | LQD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 1.6% | 37.6% | LQD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.89% | 1.05% | LQD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -24.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 5.8% | 12.8% | LQD |
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 VOO 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 41LQD +14
- Momentum56 vs 64VOO +8
- Risk Resilience80 vs 87VOO +7
- Quality74 vs 77Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor LQD. LQD’s edge is concentrated in value; VOO 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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
LQD's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LQD and VOO 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.
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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 | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 7,814,237 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.00 | 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 VOO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 505 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VOO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.65% of the fund, against 1.62% for LQD (508 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 VOO doesn’t
| Holding | LQD | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VOO adds that LQD doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.55% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.05% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | 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 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 | Even | 65 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | LQD | Value 55 vs 41 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | 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 VOO 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 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 — VOO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LQD now leads by 1.
- Today
- LQD +1
- 65 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +1
- 62 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +7
- 57 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +9
- 59 vs 68
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when LQD moved ahead of VOO.
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%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.84%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1VOO closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to LQD's edge.
- 2VOO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
VOO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LQD | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.2% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.8% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -6.3% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.2% | 16.4% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | LQD | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.3 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 6.9% | 9.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | LQD | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.1 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.6% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LQD and VOO?
LQD holds 3,158 positions to VOO's 508, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LQD and VOO overlap?
LQD and VOO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 505 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LQD or VOO?
LQD holds more positions: 3,158 versus 508 for VOO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% 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 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VOO has been more volatile over the past year, at 12.8% annualized against 5.8% for LQD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -24.5% for LQD and -24.5% for VOO.
Compare LQD and VOO 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.