| TLT | HYG | |
|---|---|---|
| Total return | -25.0% | +51.3% |
| Annualised (CAGR) | -2.8% | +4.2% |
| Volatility (annualised) | +13.6% | +7.3% |
| Sharpe (rf = 0) | -0.21 | 0.58 |
| Deepest drawdown | -48.3% | -22.0% |
| Drawdown peak → trough | 2020-08-04 → 2023-10-19 | 2020-02-13 → 2020-03-23 |
| Fee (annual expense ratio) | 0.15% | 0.49% |
| Dividend yield (12m distributions) | 4.97% (as of 2026-09-29) | 6.13% (as of 2026-09-29) |
Fee (expense ratio): HYG 0.49% a year vs TLT 0.15% — 0.34 percentage points apart, and both already deducted from every number above. What that gap compounds to over a decade: fee impact calculator.
Income: over the last 12 months HYG distributed 6.13% of its price and TLT 4.97% (percentages as of 2026-09-29 / 2026-09-29). Those are past distributions, not a promise of future income — and a lower-paying fund can still end up ahead once price changes are included; see how we count dividends.
Same window, same method: TLT fell further at its worst (-48.3%) than HYG (-22.0%). That difference — not the headline return — is usually what decides whether an investor stays in the fund through the bad part.
| Year | TLT | HYG |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | -7.5% | -0.1% | ▼
| 2025 | +4.2% | +8.6% | ▼
| 2024 | -8.1% | +8.0% | ▼
| 2023 | +2.8% | +11.5% | ▼
| 2022 | -31.2% | -11.0% | ▼
| 2021 | -4.6% | +3.7% | ▼
| 2020 | +18.2% | +4.5% | ▲
| 2019 | +14.1% | +14.1% | ▲
| 2018 | -1.6% | -2.0% | ▲
| 2017 | +9.2% | +6.1% | ▲
| 2016 | -13.4% | +1.3% | ▼
It does not say which one to own. Two funds can look identical here and differ in what they hold, how they are taxed, or how they behave in the next drawdown.
More comparisons: BND vs HYG · BND vs TLT · USFR vs TFLO · Related funds: TLT · HYG · Funds · all comparisons