ACES vs IGBH
ACES vs IGBH
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IGBH has a lower expense ratio. ACES delivered stronger 1-year returns. IGBH offers more diversification with 76 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | IGBH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.14% | |
| AUM | $109M | $203M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 5.68% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 4,130 | |
| YTD Return | -4.16% | +1.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.72% | +5.80% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -8.79% | +7.55% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -13.98% | +5.34% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.4% | 7.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -38.9% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Jul 22, 2015 |
ACES vs IGBH Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGBH) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ACES returned +21.72% while IGBH returned +5.80%. Year to date, ACES is down 4.16% versus a gain of 1.43% for IGBH.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -8.79% per year against +7.55% for IGBH; over five years the annualized figures are -13.98% and +5.34% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, ACES has the edge at +3.76% annualized vs +2.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.4% compared with 7.5% for IGBH. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.0% for ACES and -38.9% for IGBH. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.51. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while IGBH charges 0.14%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $14 annually, a gap of $41 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 1.22% against 5.68% for IGBH.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and IGBH share 0 holdings out of 113 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or IGBH?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while IGBH charges 0.14%. IGBH is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $41 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or IGBH?
Over the past year ACES returned +21.72% vs +5.80% for IGBH, so ACES leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ACES annualized +3.76% vs +2.85% for IGBH. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or IGBH?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.4% annualized versus 7.5% for IGBH. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs IGBH -38.9%.
Should I hold both ACES and IGBH?
ACES and IGBH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.51, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and IGBH?
ACES and IGBH share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 113 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or IGBH?
ACES yields 1.22% while IGBH yields 5.68%, so IGBH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.