Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BINC vs HYG: how they differ
BINC is an equity index fund and HYG a bond index fund, and over the year HYG returned more, +2.9% against +2.0%.
iShares Flexible Income Active ETF and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF.
| BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | HYG iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Flexible Income | US high yield bonds |
| Total return, 1 year | +2.0% | +2.9% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −15.5 pts | −14.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.49% |
| Holdings | 4124 | not filed |
BINC in plain words
BINC is an index equity fund tracking the Flexible Income. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +2.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 2% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 4124 positions, with the top ten at 17.4%.
HYG in plain words
HYG is a bond fund tracking the US high yield bonds. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +2.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.49% a year.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, BINC or HYG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BINC returned +2.0% and HYG returned +2.9%, so HYG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, BINC against HYG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BINC-HYG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources