CZA vs. IBIC
CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CZA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CZA returned 16.67% vs 4.38% for IBIC. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.
Performance
CZA vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 7.88% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.39% return.
CZA
- 1D
- 0.52%
- 1M
- 2.32%
- YTD
- 7.88%
- 6M
- 6.71%
- 1Y
- 16.67%
- 3Y*
- 12.98%
- 5Y*
- 7.42%
- 10Y*
- 10.64%
IBIC
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 0.08%
- YTD
- 2.39%
- 6M
- 2.49%
- 1Y
- 4.38%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CZA vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF | 7.88% | 8.31% | 12.14% | 7.93% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 2.39% | 4.96% | 5.25% | 2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between CZA and IBIC is -0.14, 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 | -0.14 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023 | -0.03 |
The correlation between CZA and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.14 (1 year) to -0.03 (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
CZA vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank
CZA
IBIC
CZA vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.
| CZA | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -6.92 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 2.21 | -0.98 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.82 | 16.41 | -14.60 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.96 | 58.11 | -51.14 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CZA vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and IBIC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CZA | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.20% | -0.90% | -52.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.21% | -0.27% | -8.94% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.18% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.80% | -0.11% | -0.69% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.87% | -0.10% | -6.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.40% | 0.08% | +2.32% |
Volatility
CZA vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) has a higher volatility of 2.90% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.16%. This indicates that CZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CZA | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.90% | 0.16% | +2.74% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.42% | 0.67% | +8.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.83% | 0.89% | +11.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.14% | 1.57% | +14.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.29% | 1.57% | +17.72% |
CZA vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison
CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
CZA vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison
CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than IBIC's 3.59% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF | 1.44% | 1.56% | 1.27% | 1.36% | 1.71% | 0.89% | 1.42% | 1.40% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.87% | 1.37% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 3.59% | 4.43% | 4.65% | 0.83% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CZA and IBIC have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CZA has higher volatility (2.90%) compared to IBIC (0.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs IBIC's -0.90%.
On 1-year performance, CZA leads with 16.67% vs 4.38% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CZA has performed better with a 16.67% return vs 4.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.
IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 1.44% for CZA.
CZA is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.10% for IBIC.
IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 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.
Find the right allocation for CZA and IBIC
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