FTMS vs. IBMN

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

FTMS (Franklin Short-Term Municipal Income ETF) and IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. FTMS is actively managed, while IBMN is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. FTMS charges 0.21%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMN.

Performance

FTMS vs. IBMN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

FTMS

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 1.41%
• 6M: 1.62%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBMN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 1.20%
• 3Y*: 2.38%
• 5Y*: 0.47%
• 10Y*: —

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

FTMS vs. IBMN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FTMS Franklin Short-Term Municipal Income ETF	1.41%	0.37%
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%	0.26%

Correlation

The correlation between FTMS and IBMN is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2025	-0.06

Return for Risk

FTMS vs. IBMN — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBMN

IBMN Risk / Return Rank: 86
IBMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IBMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
IBMN Omega Ratio Rank: 94
IBMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBMN Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FTMS vs. IBMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Short-Term Municipal Income ETF (FTMS) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FTMS	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.12	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.69	0.58	+1.11

Drawdowns

FTMS vs. IBMN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTMS drawdown since its inception was -1.24%, smaller than the maximum IBMN drawdown of -12.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTMS and IBMN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTMS	IBMN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.24%	-12.40%	+11.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.25%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.05%	+0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.30%	-1.81%	+1.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.10%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FTMS	IBMN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.00%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.50%	—
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	1.77%	1.79%	-0.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.77%	3.89%	-2.12%

FTMS vs. IBMN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTMS has a 0.21% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMN's 0.18% 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

FTMS vs. IBMN - Dividend Comparison

FTMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.97%, more than IBMN's 1.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FTMS Franklin Short-Term Municipal Income ETF	1.97%	0.57%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both FTMS and IBMN in my portfolio?

FTMS and IBMN have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FTMS or IBMN?

On fees, IBMN is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTMS or IBMN?

IBMN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.21% for FTMS.

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

FTMS has the higher dividend yield at 1.97%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.

What is the main difference between FTMS and IBMN?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.21% for FTMS and 0.18% for IBMN.