CA vs. IBMN
CA (Xtrackers California Municipal Bond ETF) and IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - CA tracks the ICE AMT-Free Broad Liquid California Municipal Index - Benchmark TR Gross while IBMN tracks the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CA returned 6.67% vs 1.20% for IBMN. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CA charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMN.
Performance
CA vs. IBMN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
CA
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 1.20%
- 6M
- 1.44%
- 1Y
- 6.67%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMN
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 1.20%
- 3Y*
- 2.44%
- 5Y*
- 0.47%
- 10Y*
- —
CA vs. IBMN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CA Xtrackers California Municipal Bond ETF | 1.20% | 3.05% | 1.51% | 0.79% |
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.00% | 2.49% | 2.33% | 0.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between CA and IBMN is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023 | 0.24 |
The correlation between CA and IBMN shifts across timeframes, from 0.11 (1 year) to 0.24 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
CA vs. IBMN — Risk / Return Rank
CA
IBMN
CA vs. IBMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers California Municipal Bond ETF (CA) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN). 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.
| CA | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.58 | 1.66 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.61 | 6.02 | -3.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.84 | 24.21 | -14.38 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CA | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.54 | 2.12 | +0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.28 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.67 | 0.58 | +0.09 |
Drawdowns
CA vs. IBMN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CA drawdown since its inception was -5.24%, smaller than the maximum IBMN drawdown of -12.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CA and IBMN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CA | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.24% | -12.40% | +7.16% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.57% | -0.25% | -2.32% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -1.10% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -7.36% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.75% | -0.05% | -0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.27% | -1.81% | +0.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.68% | 0.10% | +0.58% |
Volatility
CA vs. IBMN - Volatility Comparison
Xtrackers California Municipal Bond ETF (CA) has a higher volatility of 0.31% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) at 0.00%. This indicates that CA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBMN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CA | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.31% | 0.00% | +0.31% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.83% | 0.50% | +1.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.64% | 0.71% | +1.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.99% | 1.80% | +2.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.99% | 3.89% | +0.10% |
CA vs. IBMN - Expense Ratio Comparison
CA has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than IBMN's 0.18% 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
CA vs. IBMN - Dividend Comparison
CA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, more than IBMN's 1.14% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CA Xtrackers California Municipal Bond ETF | 2.96% | 3.14% | 3.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 1.14% | 2.03% | 2.03% | 1.72% | 0.97% | 0.70% | 1.11% | 1.65% | 0.23% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CA and IBMN have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CA has higher volatility (0.31%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CA dropped -5.24% vs IBMN's -12.40%.
On 1-year performance, CA leads with 6.67% vs 1.20% for IBMN. On fees, CA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBMN has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CA has performed better with a 6.67% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IBMN.
CA has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.
CA tracks ICE AMT-Free Broad Liquid California Municipal Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IBMN tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for CA and 0.18% for IBMN.
CA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs 2.12), 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.
Find the right allocation for CA and IBMN
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