SPIB vs USIG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPIB and USIG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPIB is State Street SPDR Portfolio Intermediate Term Corporate Bond ETF, while USIG is iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF. USIG is broader by holdings count, with 11,557 positions versus 5,353 for SPIB. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USIG ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 56.
| Metric | SPIB | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 5,353 | 11,557 |
| Top-10 concentration | 2.6% | 0.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.63% | 4.96% |
| Average volume | 6,369,091 | 2,127,738 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -4.8% | -6.6% |
| YTD return | -4.2% | -5.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +1.6% | +0.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 4.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -5.7% | -7.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -14% | -21.1% |
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.63 | -2.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.48 | -3.18 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 85/100 | 92/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio Intermediate Term Corporate Bond ETF vs iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
USIG leads
USIG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support USIG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR Portfolio Intermediate Term Corporate Bond ETF
iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USIG over SPIB, 58 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. USIG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. USIG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor USIG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. USIG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio Intermediate Term Corporate Bond ETF and iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPIB vs USIG: 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 | SPIB | USIG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 5,353 | 11,557 | USIG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 2.6% | 0.7% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.63% | 4.96% | USIG |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -14% | -21.1% | SPIB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 3.3% | 4.6% | SPIB |
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 SPIB and USIG 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.
- Risk Resilience85 vs 92USIG +7
- Momentum51 vs 55USIG +4
- Quality66 vs 64Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor USIG. USIG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
USIG's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPIB and USIG both carry a full feed there.
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 | SPIB | USIG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 5,353 | 11,557 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,369,091 | 2,127,738 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 4.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -5.7% | -7.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.63 | -2.28 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.17 | 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
SPIB and USIG share 48.58% of their weighted exposure across 5,223 common holdings.
128 holdings are unique to SPIB, and 6,331 holdings are unique to USIG. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
SPIB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 2.65% of the fund, against 0.73% for USIG (5,353 holdings vs 11,557). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | SPIB | USIG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| BANK OF AMERICA CORP SR UNSECURED 12/28 VAR | 0.12% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| T MOBILE USA INC COMPANY GUAR 04/30 3.875 | 0.12% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| SPACE EXPLORATION TECH SR UNSECURED 144A 07/31 5.35 | 0.1% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| SPACE EXPLORATION TECH SR UNSECURED 144A 07/36 5.875 | 0.16% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC SR UNSECURED 01/29 VAR | 0.08% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| AMAZON.COM INC SR UNSECURED 03/36 4.875 | 0.1% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| ANHEUSER BUSCH CO/INBEV COMPANY GUAR 02/36 4.7 | 0.08% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| ABBVIE INC SR UNSECURED 11/29 3.2 | 0.1% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPIB adds that USIG doesn’t
| Holding | SPIB | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| MORGAN STANLEY BANK NA SR UNSECURED 01/29 VAR | 0.44% | 0.03% |
| AMAZON.COM INC SR UNSECURED 07/31 4.8 | 0.39% | 0.04% |
| NVIDIA CORP SR UNSECURED 06/31 4.5 | 0.27% | 0.05% |
| ABBVIE INC SR UNSECURED 08/28 4.5 | 0.25% | 0.01% |
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC SR UNSECURED 08/32 VAR | 0.24% | 0.02% |
| ROYAL BANK OF CANADA SR UNSECURED 11/31 VAR | 0.24% | 0.01% |
What USIG adds that SPIB doesn’t
| Holding | USIG | SPIB |
|---|---|---|
| EAGLE FUNDING LUXCO S. R.L. 144A 5.50% 08/17/2030 | 0.08% | Not held |
| ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES LLC 4.90% 02/01/2046 | 0.08% | Not held |
| CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING L 144A 7.09% 09/01/2038 | 0.08% | Not held |
| CVS HEALTH CORP 5.05% 03/25/2048 | 0.07% | Not held |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC/THE 6.75% 10/01/2037 | 0.06% | Not held |
| CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING L 144A 7.34% 09/01/2041 | 0.06% | 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 USIG. 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 | 56 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day -2.8% vs -3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | USIG | Risk Resilience 85 vs 92 |
| 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 SPIB and USIG 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 1 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 USIG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20USIG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USIG +2
- 56 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- USIG +1
- 49 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- SPIB +1
- 53 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when SPIB moved ahead of USIG.
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.
SPIB and USIG carry the same 5 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
USIG 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 -0.03%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, 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.
- 1SPIB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to USIG's edge.
- 2SPIB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3USIG'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
SPIB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SPIB | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.2% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.7% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | -4.2% | -5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.8% | -6.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SPIB | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.7 | 65.3 |
| ADX (14) | 28.1 | 31.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.8% | -3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 3.8% | 5.4% |
Risk
USIG is the more resilient| Metric | SPIB | USIG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.63 | -2.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.48 | -3.18 |
| Max drawdown | -5.7% | -7.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5% | -6.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.3% | 4.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do SPIB and USIG overlap?
SPIB and USIG share 48.58% of their weighted exposure across 5,223 common holdings. 128 holdings are unique to SPIB, and 6,331 holdings are unique to USIG. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPIB or USIG?
USIG holds more positions: 11,557 versus 5,353 for SPIB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.04% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
USIG, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.96% against 4.63% for SPIB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
USIG has been more volatile over the past year, at 4.6% annualized against 3.3% for SPIB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPIB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -14% against -21.1% for USIG.
Compare SPIB and USIG 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.