GBF vs. IBTM
GBF (iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF) and IBTM (iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds from iShares - GBF tracks the Bloomberg U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index while IBTM tracks the ICE 2032 Maturity US Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GBF returned 3.64%/yr vs 2.74%/yr for IBTM. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. GBF charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTM.
Performance
GBF vs. IBTM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GBF achieves a 0.35% return, which is significantly higher than IBTM's -0.36% return.
GBF
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- 1Y
- 4.02%
- 3Y*
- 3.64%
- 5Y*
- -0.19%
- 10Y*
- 1.51%
IBTM
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- -0.11%
- YTD
- -0.36%
- 6M
- -0.38%
- 1Y
- 3.43%
- 3Y*
- 2.74%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GBF vs. IBTM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 0.35% | 6.41% | 0.99% | 5.79% | -2.90% |
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF | -0.36% | 8.06% | -0.14% | 3.48% | -4.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBF and IBTM is 0.94, 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 | 0.94 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2022 | 0.96 |
The correlation between GBF and IBTM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
GBF vs. IBTM — Risk / Return Rank
GBF
IBTM
GBF vs. IBTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) 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.
| GBF | IBTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.15 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.48 | 1.05 | +0.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.37 | 3.04 | +1.33 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GBF | IBTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.09 | 0.85 | +0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.58 | 0.20 | +0.38 |
Drawdowns
GBF vs. IBTM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBF drawdown since its inception was -19.67%, which is greater than IBTM's maximum drawdown of -13.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBF and IBTM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GBF | IBTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.67% | -13.60% | -6.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.73% | -3.26% | +0.53% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.78% | -7.86% | +2.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.45% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.67% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.71% | -2.25% | -2.46% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.67% | -4.82% | +1.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.92% | 1.13% | -0.21% |
Volatility
GBF vs. IBTM - Volatility Comparison
iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) have volatilities of 1.21% and 1.20%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GBF | IBTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.21% | 1.20% | +0.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.64% | 2.75% | -0.11% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.75% | 4.09% | -0.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.93% | 7.55% | -1.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.28% | 7.55% | -2.27% |
GBF vs. IBTM - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBF has a 0.20% 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
GBF vs. IBTM - Dividend Comparison
GBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.78%, less than IBTM's 3.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.78% | 3.81% | 3.94% | 3.03% | 2.13% | 1.22% | 1.64% | 2.64% | 2.59% | 2.31% | 2.09% | 2.04% |
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF | 3.95% | 3.87% | 3.96% | 3.39% | 1.38% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, GBF 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.
GBF has higher volatility (1.21%) compared to IBTM (1.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBF dropped -19.67% vs IBTM's -13.60%.
On 3-year performance, GBF leads with 3.64% 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.
Over the 3-year period, GBF has performed better with a 3.64% return vs 2.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBTM is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for GBF.
IBTM has the higher dividend yield at 3.95%, compared with 3.78% for GBF.
GBF tracks Bloomberg U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index, while IBTM tracks ICE 2032 Maturity US Treasury Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GBF and 0.07% for IBTM.
GBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs 0.85), 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 GBF and IBTM
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