BSMW vs. BPH
BSMW (Invesco BulletShares 2032 Municipal Bond ETF) and BPH (BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BSMW is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Invesco BulletShares USD Municipal Bond 2032 Index, while BPH is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Precidian. BSMW is passively managed, while BPH is actively managed. Their -0.34 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BSMW charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for BPH.
Performance
BSMW vs. BPH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BSMW
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- -1.32%
- 6M
- -0.77%
- YTD
- 0.38%
- 1Y
- 4.56%
- 3Y*
- 2.80%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.01%
BPH
- 1D
- -4.23%
- 1M
- 12.03%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $45.76K | $51.75K | $50.82K | |
| $855.22K | $847.67K | $742.02K |
BSMW vs. BPH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BSMW Invesco BulletShares 2032 Municipal Bond ETF | 0.23% |
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF | -0.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between BSMW and BPH is -0.34, 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 | -0.34 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BSMW vs. BPH — Risk / Return Rank
BSMW
BPH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BSMW vs. BPH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2032 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMW) and BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH). 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.
| BSMW | BPH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.57 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.39 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BSMW vs. BPH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BSMW drawdown since its inception was -7.57%, smaller than the maximum BPH drawdown of -15.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSMW and BPH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BSMW | BPH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.57% | -15.58% | +8.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.44% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.88% | -5.73% | +3.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.70% | -5.56% | +3.86% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.04% | — | — |
Volatility
BSMW vs. BPH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BSMW | BPH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.93% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.09% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.65% | 29.90% | -27.25% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.91% | 29.90% | -24.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.91% | 29.90% | -24.99% |
BSMW vs. BPH - Expense Ratio Comparison
BSMW has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than BPH's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
BSMW vs. BPH - Dividend Comparison
BSMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.25%, more than BPH's 0.50% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF | 0.50% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
BSMW Invesco BulletShares 2032 Municipal Bond ETF | 3.25% | 3.24% | 3.48% | 2.36% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BSMW and BPH have a correlation of -0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BSMW is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BSMW is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for BPH.
BSMW has the higher dividend yield at 3.25%, compared with 0.50% for BPH.
BSMW is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BPH is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Precidian. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for BSMW and 0.19% for BPH.
Find the right allocation for BSMW and BPH
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer