Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
APCB vs IBDW: Differences, Returns & Fees
APCB's duration was 4.1 years on Aug 31, 2026 and IBDW's 4.2 on Jul 31, 2026; IBDW charges 0.10% to APCB's 0.36%.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about APCB and IBDW
Net assets: $1.0bn on Aug 31, 2026 for ActivePassive Core Bond ETF, and $2.7bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF.
Pair scorecard
IBDW costs 0.26 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 0.8 points.
| Measure | APCB | IBDW |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | −1.4% | −0.6% |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | Bloomberg December 2031 Maturity Corporate Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.10% |
| Net assets, APCB as of Aug 31, 2026 and IBDW as of Oct 27, 2026 | $1.0bn | $2.7bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 1% | |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Aug 31, 2026. Method
Risk and return
May 12, 2023 to Oct 23, 2026 · 180 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: APCB against AGG, May 12, 2023 to Oct 23, 2026; IBDW against IUSB, Jul 2, 2021 to Oct 23, 2026.
IBDW returned more: +16.3% to +9.5%. APCB swung less: 4.8% to 5.5%. APCB fell less at its worst: −5.4% to −6.1%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | APCB | IBDW | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +9.5% | +16.3% | IBDW | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +2.6% | +4.5% | IBDW | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | −4.7% | −1.4% | IBDW | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 4.8% | 5.5% | APCB | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 3.5% | 3.9% | APCB | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −5.4% | −6.1% | APCB | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 90.1% | 120.9% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 91.1% | 114.3% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 0.90 | 1.21 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.98 | 0.93 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | −0.38 | −0.01 | IBDW | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | −0.53 | −0.01 | IBDW | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | −0.020 | −0.028 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.49 | 0.73 | IBDW | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | AGG | IUSB | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.3% a year | +0.9% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.68 | 1.14 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −1.1% to +0.5% | −0.6% to +2.4% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.12 | 0.06 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 0.9% | 2.1% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 180 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, APCB and IBDW hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Aug 31, 2026.
half
1% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
APCB and IBDW on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
APCB and IBDW are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. APCB follows No index, actively managed and IBDW follows Bloomberg December 2031 Maturity Corporate Index.
- Holdings in common. 1% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Aug 31, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026).
- Cost. APCB charges 0.36% of assets a year and IBDW 0.10%, a gap of 0.26 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
APCB
APCB is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned −1.4% with distributions reinvested, against −1.4% for its benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Total Return Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.36% a year.
IBDW
IBDW tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned −0.6% with distributions reinvested, against −1.2% for its benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Universal Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.10% a year.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, APCB or IBDW?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, APCB returned −1.4% and IBDW −0.6%.
- Which is cheaper, APCB or IBDW?
- IBDW is cheaper, by 0.26 percentage points a year. That is about $26 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, APCB against IBDW, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/apcb-vs-ibdw
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). APCB against IBDW. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/apcb-vs-ibdw
[APCB against IBDW (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/apcb-vs-ibdw)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.