BPH vs. IBMT

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

BPH (BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF) and IBMT (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BPH is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Precidian, while IBMT is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index. BPH is actively managed, while IBMT is passively managed. Their -0.37 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BPH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMT.

Performance

BPH vs. IBMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH) and iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

BPH

• 1D: -2.84%
• 1M: 9.16%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

IBMT

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: -0.68%
• 6M: -0.13%
• YTD: 0.97%
• 1Y: 3.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.03%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	$42.73K	$46.69K	$50.13K
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	$1.26M	$1.28M	$1.16M

BPH vs. IBMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	-3.22%
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	1.61%

Correlation

The correlation between BPH and IBMT is -0.37, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2026	-0.37

Return for Risk

BPH vs. IBMT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BPH

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

IBMT

IBMT Risk / Return Rank: 39
IBMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
IBMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IBMT Omega Ratio Rank: 47
IBMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
IBMT Martin Ratio Rank: 31

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BPH vs. IBMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BPH	IBMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.21	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.89	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.25	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.18	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	3.23	—

Drawdowns

BPH vs. IBMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BPH drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, which is greater than IBMT's maximum drawdown of -3.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BPH and IBMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BPH	IBMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.58%	-3.18%	-12.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.41%	-0.89%	-7.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.61%	-0.76%	-4.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.13%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BPH	IBMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.75%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	2.40%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.27%	3.01%	+27.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.27%	3.84%	+26.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.27%	3.84%	+26.43%

BPH vs. IBMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BPH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMT's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BPH vs. IBMT - Dividend Comparison

BPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than IBMT's 3.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	0.52%	0.00%
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	3.43%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BPH and IBMT in my portfolio?

BPH and IBMT have a correlation of -0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BPH or IBMT?

On fees, IBMT is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BPH or IBMT?

IBMT is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for BPH.

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

IBMT has the higher dividend yield at 3.43%, compared with 0.52% for BPH.

What is the main difference between BPH and IBMT?

BPH is categorized as Energy Equities, while IBMT is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Precidian and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for BPH and 0.18% for IBMT.