FLCB vs. IBTM

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FLCB (Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF) and IBTM (iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. FLCB is actively managed, while IBTM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLCB returned 4.02%/yr vs 2.74%/yr for IBTM. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLCB charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTM.

Performance

FLCB vs. IBTM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCB achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly higher than IBTM's -0.32% return.

FLCB

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.09%
• YTD: 0.41%
• 6M: 0.52%
• 1Y: 5.33%
• 3Y*: 4.02%
• 5Y*: 0.07%
• 10Y*: —

IBTM

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -0.24%
• YTD: -0.32%
• 6M: -0.47%
• 1Y: 4.02%
• 3Y*: 2.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCB vs. IBTM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLCB Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF	0.41%	6.95%	1.59%	5.72%	-2.64%
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF	-0.32%	8.06%	-0.14%	3.48%	-4.63%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCB and IBTM is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2022	0.95

The correlation between FLCB and IBTM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLCB vs. IBTM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCB

FLCB Risk / Return Rank: 37
FLCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FLCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FLCB Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FLCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
FLCB Martin Ratio Rank: 35

IBTM

IBTM Risk / Return Rank: 26
IBTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
IBTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
IBTM Omega Ratio Rank: 25
IBTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IBTM Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

FLCB vs. IBTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM). 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.

	FLCB	IBTM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	0.99	+0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	1.50	+0.55
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.17	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	1.13	+0.64
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.46	3.32	+2.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLCB vs. IBTM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCB Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is higher than the IBTM Sharpe Ratio of 0.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCB and IBTM, 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

	FLCB	IBTM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	0.99	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.17	0.21	-0.04

Drawdowns

FLCB vs. IBTM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCB drawdown since its inception was -18.82%, which is greater than IBTM's maximum drawdown of -13.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCB and IBTM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCB	IBTM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.82%	-13.60%	-5.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.85%	-3.26%	+0.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.16%	-7.86%	+1.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.48%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.22%	-2.21%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.63%	-4.82%	-1.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.93%	1.11%	-0.18%

Volatility

FLCB vs. IBTM - Volatility Comparison

Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) have volatilities of 1.27% and 1.22%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCB	IBTM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.27%	1.22%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.77%	2.77%	0.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.87%	4.10%	-0.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.75%	7.56%	-1.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.51%	7.56%	-2.05%

FLCB vs. IBTM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCB has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTM's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLCB vs. IBTM - Dividend Comparison

FLCB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.30%, more than IBTM's 3.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FLCB Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF	4.30%	4.19%	4.10%	3.40%	2.73%	2.28%	3.24%	0.73%
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF	3.94%	3.87%	3.96%	3.39%	1.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCB and IBTM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, FLCB and IBTM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FLCB or IBTM?

FLCB has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to IBTM (1.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCB dropped -18.82% vs IBTM's -13.60%.

Which ETF is better, FLCB or IBTM?

On 3-year performance, FLCB leads with 4.02% vs 2.74% for IBTM. On fees, IBTM is cheaper at 0.07% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCB or IBTM?

Over the 3-year period, FLCB has performed better with a 4.02% return vs 2.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCB or IBTM?

IBTM is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for FLCB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLCB or IBTM?

FLCB has the higher dividend yield at 4.30%, compared with 3.94% for IBTM.

What is the main difference between FLCB and IBTM?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLCB and 0.07% for IBTM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.99), 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.