IBDQ vs. CGMU

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IBDQ (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Corporate ETF) and CGMU (Capital Group Municipal Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBDQ is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg December 2025 Maturity Corporate, while CGMU is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Capital Group. IBDQ is passively managed, while CGMU is actively managed. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBDQ charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for CGMU.

Performance

IBDQ vs. CGMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Corporate ETF (IBDQ) and Capital Group Municipal Income ETF (CGMU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

IBDQ

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGMU

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 0.63%
• YTD: 1.58%
• 6M: 1.97%
• 1Y: 6.75%
• 3Y*: 4.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBDQ vs. CGMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBDQ iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Corporate ETF	0.00%	4.13%	5.12%	5.23%	1.54%
CGMU Capital Group Municipal Income ETF	1.58%	5.19%	2.64%	6.76%	4.53%

Correlation

The correlation between IBDQ and CGMU is -0.13, 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	-0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2022	0.30

The correlation between IBDQ and CGMU shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBDQ vs. CGMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGMU

CGMU Risk / Return Rank: 76
CGMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CGMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
CGMU Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CGMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
CGMU Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

IBDQ vs. CGMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Corporate ETF (IBDQ) and Capital Group Municipal Income ETF (CGMU). 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

	IBDQ	CGMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.95	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	—	1.67	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	IBDQ	CGMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-4.11%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-2.55%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-0.71%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-0.84%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.78%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IBDQ	CGMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.80%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	1.73%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.30%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	3.48%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	3.48%	—

IBDQ vs. CGMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBDQ has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than CGMU's 0.27% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IBDQ vs. CGMU - Dividend Comparison

IBDQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, less than CGMU's 3.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGMU Capital Group Municipal Income ETF	3.33%	3.32%	3.21%	3.08%	0.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IBDQ iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Corporate ETF	2.08%	3.77%	3.81%	3.27%	2.23%	2.07%	2.51%	3.21%	3.52%	3.28%	3.39%	2.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBDQ and CGMU in my portfolio?

IBDQ and CGMU have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IBDQ or CGMU?

On fees, IBDQ is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBDQ or CGMU?

IBDQ is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.27% for CGMU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBDQ or CGMU?

CGMU has the higher dividend yield at 3.33%, compared with 2.08% for IBDQ.

What is the main difference between IBDQ and CGMU?

IBDQ is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while CGMU is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBDQ and 0.27% for CGMU.