LQD vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LQD and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LQD is iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 3,158 for LQD. VXUS is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has LQD ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 63.
What is the main difference between LQD and VXUS?
LQD and VXUS have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LQD | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 8,821 |
| Top-10 concentration | 1.6% | 12.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.89% | 2.37% |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 5,459,776 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -8.2% | +12.8% |
| YTD return | -6.3% | +11% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -0.9% | +8.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 17.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -28.9% |
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | 0.83 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
LQD leads
LQD leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from VXUS.
Fragile: 0 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 Total International Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LQD over VXUS, 65 versus 63 as of Oct 21, 2026. LQD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while VXUS holds the stronger value profile. LQD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LQD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. LQD lead: Reversed — VXUS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LQD now leads by 2.
Compare iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LQD vs VXUS: 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 | VXUS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.14% | 0.05% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,158 | 8,821 | VXUS |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 1.6% | 12.9% | LQD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.89% | 2.37% | LQD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -28.9% | LQD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 5.8% | 17.2% | 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 VXUS 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
- Value55 vs 59VXUS +4
- Quality74 vs 76Even
- Risk Resilience80 vs 82Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor LQD. LQD’s edge is concentrated in momentum; VXUS keeps a meaningful value 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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 VXUS 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.
VXUS (Vanguard Total International Stock ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 12.1% against 6.9%.
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 | VXUS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.14% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,158 | 8,821 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 30,291,886 | 5,459,776 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 17.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.10 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.11 | 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 VXUS share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 8,281 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VXUS is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 12.94% of the fund, against 1.62% for LQD (8,821 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 VXUS doesn’t
| Holding | LQD | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VXUS adds that LQD doesn’t
| Holding | VXUS | LQD |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 4.02% | Not held |
| 005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.8% | Not held |
| ASML.ASASML Holding NV | 1.42% | Not held |
| 000660.KSSK hynix Inc | 1.41% | Not held |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 0.85% | Not held |
| HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC | 0.82% | 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
0 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 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VXUS | Value 55 vs 59 |
| Technicals | VXUS | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 82 |
| 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 VXUS 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 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)
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 — VXUS led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LQD now leads by 2.
- Today
- LQD +2
- 65 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- LQD +1
- 62 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +5
- 57 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +12
- 59 vs 71
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when LQD moved ahead of VXUS.
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
- 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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VXUS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.63%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, 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 +0.31%, 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.
- 1VXUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to LQD's edge.
- 2VXUS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
VXUS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LQD | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.2% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.8% | 2.3% |
| Year to date | -6.3% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.2% | 12.8% |
Technicals
VXUS has the stronger structure| Metric | LQD | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66 | 41.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.3 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 6.9% | 12.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LQD | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.1 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.96 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 5.8% | 17.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.6% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LQD and VXUS?
LQD and VXUS have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LQD and VXUS overlap?
LQD and VXUS share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3,156 holdings are unique to LQD, and 8,281 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LQD or VXUS?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 3,158 for LQD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% 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 2.37% for VXUS.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VXUS has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.2% annualized against 5.8% for LQD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
LQD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -28.9% for VXUS.
Compare LQD and VXUS 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.