Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
HYG vs MBB: how they differ
HYG and MBB are both bond index funds, and over the year HYG returned more, +2.9% against −0.1%.
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF and iShares MBS ETF.
| HYG iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | MBB iShares MBS ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | US high yield bonds | Mbs |
| Total return, 1 year | +2.9% | −0.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −14.6 pts | −17.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | not filed | 11144 |
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.
MBB in plain words
MBB is a bond fund tracking the Mbs. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −0.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. It sat 3.3% below its high of Feb 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, HYG or MBB?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, HYG returned +2.9% and MBB returned −0.1%, so HYG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, HYG or MBB?
- HYG charges 0.49% a year and MBB charges 0.04%, so MBB 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, HYG against MBB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/HYG-MBB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources