ATMP vs. IBMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ATMP (Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN) and IBMT (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ATMP is a MLPs fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP, while IBMT is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ATMP returned 18.01% vs 6.34% for IBMT. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. ATMP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMT.

Performance

ATMP vs. IBMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) and iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATMP achieves a 20.02% return, which is significantly higher than IBMT's 0.19% return.

ATMP

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -2.32%
• YTD: 20.02%
• 6M: 19.57%
• 1Y: 18.01%
• 3Y*: 21.17%
• 5Y*: 15.87%
• 10Y*: 4.90%

IBMT

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 0.19%
• 6M: 0.25%
• 1Y: 6.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ATMP vs. IBMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN	20.02%	-6.74%
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.19%	7.26%

Correlation

The correlation between ATMP and IBMT is -0.22, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.13

Return for Risk

ATMP vs. IBMT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ATMP

ATMP Risk / Return Rank: 39
ATMP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
ATMP Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
ATMP Omega Ratio Rank: 33
ATMP Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ATMP Martin Ratio Rank: 38

IBMT

IBMT Risk / Return Rank: 60
IBMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
IBMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBMT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
IBMT Martin Ratio Rank: 39

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ATMP vs. IBMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) and iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ATMP	IBMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	2.05	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.87	3.38	-1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.46	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	2.06	+0.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.16	6.13	+0.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ATMP vs. IBMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATMP Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is lower than the IBMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATMP and IBMT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ATMP	IBMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	2.05	-0.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.18	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.09	1.63	-1.54

Drawdowns

ATMP vs. IBMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ATMP drawdown since its inception was -80.86%, which is greater than IBMT's maximum drawdown of -3.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATMP and IBMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ATMP	IBMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-80.86%	-3.18%	-77.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.26%	-3.10%	-4.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.48%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.98%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-75.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.07%	-1.65%	-4.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.15%	-0.74%	-30.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	1.04%	+1.91%

Volatility

ATMP vs. IBMT - Volatility Comparison

Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) has a higher volatility of 5.61% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) at 0.78%. This indicates that ATMP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ATMP	IBMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.61%	0.78%	+4.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.72%	2.06%	+8.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.00%	3.11%	+10.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.23%	3.86%	+18.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.68%	3.86%	+23.82%

ATMP vs. IBMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ATMP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMT's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

ATMP vs. IBMT - Dividend Comparison

ATMP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.65%.

Position	TTM	2025
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN	0.00%	0.00%
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	3.65%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ATMP and IBMT in my portfolio?

ATMP and IBMT have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ATMP or IBMT?

ATMP has higher volatility (5.61%) compared to IBMT (0.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ATMP dropped -80.86% vs IBMT's -3.18%.

Which ETF is better, ATMP or IBMT?

On 1-year performance, ATMP leads with 18.01% vs 6.34% for IBMT. On fees, IBMT is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMT has been the lower-risk option at 0.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ATMP or IBMT?

Over the 1-year period, ATMP has performed better with a 18.01% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ATMP or IBMT?

IBMT is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ATMP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ATMP or IBMT?

IBMT has the higher dividend yield at 3.65%, compared with 0.00% for ATMP.

What is the main difference between ATMP and IBMT?

ATMP is categorized as MLPs, while IBMT is Municipal Bonds. ATMP tracks CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP, while IBMT tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index. They also come from different issuers: Barclays Capital and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ATMP and 0.18% for IBMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.31), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.