Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BOXX vs HYG: how they differ
BOXX is a short-term Treasury fund and HYG a bond index fund, and over the year BOXX returned more, +4.0% against +2.9%.
Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF.
| BOXX Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF | HYG iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Alpha | iShares |
| What it is | 1-3 Month Box | US high yield bonds |
| Total return, 1 year | +4.0% | +2.9% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −13.5 pts | −14.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.49% |
BOXX in plain words
BOXX is a cash and treasury bills tracking the 1-3 Month Box. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +4.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year.
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, BOXX or HYG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BOXX returned +4.0% and HYG returned +2.9%, so BOXX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, BOXX or HYG?
- BOXX charges 0.19% a year and HYG charges 0.49%, so BOXX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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, BOXX against HYG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BOXX-HYG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources