GCAL vs. IBMN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. GCAL is actively managed, while IBMN is passively managed. Over the past year, GCAL returned 6.88% vs 1.20% for IBMN. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCAL charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMN.

Performance

GCAL vs. IBMN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

GCAL

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.69%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 2.03%
• 1Y: 6.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBMN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 1.20%
• 3Y*: 2.44%
• 5Y*: 0.47%
• 10Y*: —

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

GCAL vs. IBMN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	1.59%	4.60%	1.65%
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%	2.49%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between GCAL and IBMN is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.23

Return for Risk

GCAL vs. IBMN — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCAL

GCAL Risk / Return Rank: 78
GCAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
GCAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GCAL Omega Ratio Rank: 91
GCAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GCAL Martin Ratio Rank: 63

IBMN

IBMN Risk / Return Rank: 84
IBMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
IBMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
IBMN Omega Ratio Rank: 93
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.

GCAL vs. IBMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) 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.

	GCAL	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.83	2.12	+0.71
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.08	3.51	+0.57
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.66	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	6.02	-2.94
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	24.21	-13.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GCAL vs. IBMN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.83, which is higher than the IBMN Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCAL 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

	GCAL	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.83	2.12	+0.71
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.18	0.58	+0.59

Drawdowns

GCAL vs. IBMN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, smaller than the maximum IBMN drawdown of -12.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and IBMN.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCAL	IBMN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-12.40%	+8.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.24%	-0.25%	-1.99%
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	-0.32%	-0.05%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-1.81%	+0.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	0.10%	+0.52%

Volatility

GCAL vs. IBMN - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) has a higher volatility of 0.73% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) at 0.00%. This indicates that GCAL'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

	GCAL	IBMN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.73%	0.00%	+0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.75%	0.50%	+1.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44%	0.71%	+1.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.63%	1.80%	+1.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.63%	3.89%	-0.26%

GCAL vs. IBMN - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCAL has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMN's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCAL vs. IBMN - Dividend Comparison

GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, more than IBMN's 1.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	3.32%	3.06%	1.41%	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 GCAL and IBMN in my portfolio?

GCAL and IBMN have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GCAL or IBMN?

GCAL has higher volatility (0.73%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCAL dropped -4.39% vs IBMN's -12.40%.

Which ETF is better, GCAL or IBMN?

On 1-year performance, GCAL leads with 6.88% vs 1.20% for IBMN. On fees, IBMN is cheaper at 0.18% 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, GCAL or IBMN?

Over the 1-year period, GCAL has performed better with a 6.88% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCAL or IBMN?

IBMN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for GCAL.

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

GCAL has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.

What is the main difference between GCAL and IBMN?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GCAL and 0.18% for IBMN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.12), 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.