EIPX vs. IBMT

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) and IBMT (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EIPX is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while IBMT is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index. EIPX is actively managed, while IBMT is passively managed. Over the past year, EIPX returned 31.45% vs 6.24% for IBMT. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. EIPX charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMT.

Performance

EIPX vs. IBMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) and iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EIPX achieves a 21.73% return, which is significantly higher than IBMT's 0.25% return.

EIPX

• 1D: -0.81%
• 1M: -0.56%
• YTD: 21.73%
• 6M: 19.32%
• 1Y: 31.45%
• 3Y*: 21.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBMT

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.39%
• YTD: 0.25%
• 6M: 0.53%
• 1Y: 6.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EIPX vs. IBMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	21.73%	3.66%
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.25%	7.26%

Correlation

The correlation between EIPX and IBMT is -0.18, 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	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

EIPX vs. IBMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

EIPX

EIPX Risk / Return Rank: 90
EIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
EIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 84
EIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
EIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 91

IBMT

IBMT Risk / Return Rank: 59
IBMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IBMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBMT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
IBMT Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

EIPX vs. IBMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) 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.

	EIPX	IBMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	2.02	+0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.03	3.33	+0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.45	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.67	2.02	+5.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.05	6.00	+15.05
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EIPX vs. IBMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIPX Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is higher than the IBMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIPX and IBMT, 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

	EIPX	IBMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.85	2.02	+0.83
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.19	1.64	-0.45

Drawdowns

EIPX vs. IBMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EIPX drawdown since its inception was -15.43%, which is greater than IBMT's maximum drawdown of -3.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIPX and IBMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EIPX	IBMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.43%	-3.18%	-12.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.12%	-3.10%	-1.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.43%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.77%	-1.59%	-1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-0.74%	-1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.50%	1.04%	+0.46%

Volatility

EIPX vs. IBMT - Volatility Comparison

FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) has a higher volatility of 3.67% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) at 0.78%. This indicates that EIPX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EIPX	IBMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.67%	0.78%	+2.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.45%	2.06%	+6.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.08%	3.11%	+7.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.05%	3.85%	+11.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.05%	3.85%	+11.20%

EIPX vs. IBMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EIPX has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMT's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

EIPX vs. IBMT - Dividend Comparison

EIPX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%, less than IBMT's 3.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	2.68%	3.23%	3.27%	3.48%	0.34%
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	3.64%	2.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EIPX and IBMT in my portfolio?

EIPX and IBMT have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EIPX or IBMT?

EIPX has higher volatility (3.67%) compared to IBMT (0.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EIPX dropped -15.43% vs IBMT's -3.18%.

Which ETF is better, EIPX or IBMT?

On 1-year performance, EIPX leads with 31.45% vs 6.24% for IBMT. On fees, IBMT is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMT has been the lower-risk option at 0.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EIPX or IBMT?

Over the 1-year period, EIPX has performed better with a 31.45% return vs 6.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EIPX or IBMT?

IBMT is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.

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

IBMT has the higher dividend yield at 3.64%, compared with 2.68% for EIPX.

What is the main difference between EIPX and IBMT?

EIPX is categorized as Energy Equities, while IBMT is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for EIPX and 0.18% for IBMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EIPX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.85 vs 2.02), 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.