DFNM vs. IBMN

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

DFNM (Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF) and IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. DFNM is actively managed, while IBMN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, DFNM returned 3.39%/yr vs 2.44%/yr for IBMN. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DFNM charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMN.

Performance

DFNM vs. IBMN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

DFNM

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.27%
• 6M: 1.66%
• 1Y: 5.31%
• 3Y*: 3.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBMN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 1.26%
• 3Y*: 2.44%
• 5Y*: 0.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

DFNM vs. IBMN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFNM Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF	1.27%	3.87%	1.19%	3.97%	-4.02%	0.47%
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%	2.49%	2.33%	2.42%	-4.43%	0.13%

Correlation

The correlation between DFNM and IBMN is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2021	0.51

Over the past year, the correlation between DFNM and IBMN has dropped to 0.15 - well below their long-term average of 0.51, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

DFNM vs. IBMN — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFNM

DFNM Risk / Return Rank: 77
DFNM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
DFNM Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
DFNM Omega Ratio Rank: 94
DFNM Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
DFNM Martin Ratio Rank: 56

IBMN

IBMN Risk / Return Rank: 71
IBMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IBMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
IBMN Omega Ratio Rank: 94
IBMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
IBMN Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

DFNM vs. IBMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) 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.

	DFNM	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.04	2.22	+0.82
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.41	3.67	+0.73
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	1.69	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	1.58	+1.19
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.07	16.58	-6.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFNM vs. IBMN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFNM Sharpe Ratio is 3.04, which is higher than the IBMN Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFNM and IBMN, 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

	DFNM	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.04	2.22	+0.82
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.30	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.58	-0.01

Drawdowns

DFNM vs. IBMN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFNM drawdown since its inception was -6.99%, smaller than the maximum IBMN drawdown of -12.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFNM and IBMN.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFNM	IBMN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.99%	-12.40%	+5.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.84%	-0.25%	-1.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.82%	-1.10%	-1.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-0.05%	-0.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.96%	-1.81%	-0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.50%	0.10%	+0.40%

Volatility

DFNM vs. IBMN - Volatility Comparison

Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM) has a higher volatility of 0.59% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) at 0.00%. This indicates that DFNM'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.

Volatility by Period

	DFNM	IBMN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	0.00%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.29%	0.50%	+0.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.77%	0.71%	+1.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.54%	1.80%	+0.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.54%	3.89%	-1.35%

DFNM vs. IBMN - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFNM has a 0.17% 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

DFNM vs. IBMN - Dividend Comparison

DFNM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.89%, more than IBMN's 1.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
DFNM Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF	2.89%	2.94%	2.74%	2.39%	1.16%	0.05%	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

Can I hold both DFNM and IBMN in my portfolio?

DFNM and IBMN have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DFNM or IBMN?

DFNM has higher volatility (0.59%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFNM dropped -6.99% vs IBMN's -12.40%.

Which ETF is better, DFNM or IBMN?

On 3-year performance, DFNM leads with 3.39% vs 2.44% for IBMN. On fees, DFNM is cheaper at 0.17% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, DFNM or IBMN?

Over the 3-year period, DFNM has performed better with a 3.39% return vs 2.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFNM or IBMN?

DFNM is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IBMN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DFNM or IBMN?

DFNM has the higher dividend yield at 2.89%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.

What is the main difference between DFNM and IBMN?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for DFNM and 0.18% for IBMN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFNM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.04 vs 2.22), 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.