IBDS vs. DCMT
IBDS (iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Corporate ETF) and DCMT (DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBDS is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Barclays December 2027 Maturity Corporate Index, while DCMT is a Commodities fund actively managed by DoubleLine. IBDS is passively managed, while DCMT is actively managed. Over the past year, IBDS returned 3.98% vs 30.61% for DCMT. Their -0.12 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. IBDS charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for DCMT.
Performance
IBDS vs. DCMT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBDS achieves a 1.90% return, which is significantly lower than DCMT's 26.14% return.
IBDS
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 1.59%
- YTD
- 1.90%
- 1Y
- 3.98%
- 3Y*
- 5.38%
- 5Y*
- 1.34%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.17%
DCMT
- 1D
- -1.24%
- 1M
- 7.21%
- 6M
- 20.26%
- YTD
- 26.14%
- 1Y
- 30.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 13.94%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $312.97K | $269.09K | $196.68K | |
| $13.22M | $15.94M | $14.75M |
IBDS vs. DCMT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
IBDS iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Corporate ETF | 1.90% | 5.86% | 4.26% |
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF | 26.14% | 6.04% | 3.65% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBDS and DCMT is -0.30, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024 | -0.12 |
The correlation between IBDS and DCMT shifts across timeframes, from -0.30 (1 year) to -0.12 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IBDS vs. DCMT — Risk / Return Rank
IBDS
DCMT
IBDS vs. DCMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Corporate ETF (IBDS) and DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| IBDS | DCMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +5.39 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.09 | 1.28 | +0.81 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 9.20 | 1.93 | +7.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 44.61 | 6.43 | +38.19 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBDS vs. DCMT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBDS drawdown since its inception was -16.75%, roughly equal to the maximum DCMT drawdown of -15.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBDS and DCMT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBDS | DCMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.75% | -15.96% | -0.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.43% | -15.96% | +15.53% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.27% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.83% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -9.46% | +9.46% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.30% | -3.62% | +0.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.09% | 4.78% | -4.69% |
Volatility
IBDS vs. DCMT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Corporate ETF (IBDS) is 0.20%, while DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT) has a volatility of 5.66%. This indicates that IBDS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DCMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBDS | DCMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.20% | 5.66% | -5.46% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.62% | 17.01% | -16.39% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.94% | 19.04% | -18.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.15% | 16.05% | -11.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.50% | 16.05% | -10.55% |
IBDS vs. DCMT - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBDS has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than DCMT's 0.66% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBDS vs. DCMT - Dividend Comparison
IBDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.30%, more than DCMT's 2.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF | 2.91% | 3.67% | 1.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBDS iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Corporate ETF | 4.30% | 4.36% | 4.37% | 3.81% | 2.87% | 2.19% | 2.66% | 3.32% | 3.66% | 0.97% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBDS and DCMT have a correlation of -0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DCMT has higher volatility (5.66%) compared to IBDS (0.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBDS dropped -16.75% vs DCMT's -15.96%.
On 1-year performance, DCMT leads with 30.61% vs 3.98% for IBDS. On fees, IBDS is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBDS has been the lower-risk option at 0.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, DCMT has performed better with a 30.61% return vs 3.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBDS is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for DCMT.
IBDS has the higher dividend yield at 4.30%, compared with 2.91% for DCMT.
IBDS is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while DCMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and DoubleLine. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBDS and 0.66% for DCMT.
IBDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.27 vs 1.62), 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 IBDS and DCMT
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