IBGB vs. CMCI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IBGB (iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF) and CMCI (VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBGB is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2045 Maturity US Treasury Index, while CMCI is a Commodities fund tracking the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Composite Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBGB returned 4.04% vs 29.90% for CMCI. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. IBGB charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMCI.

Performance

IBGB vs. CMCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) and VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBGB achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than CMCI's 21.96% return.

IBGB

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: -0.92%
• 1Y: 4.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMCI

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: -1.73%
• YTD: 21.96%
• 6M: 22.52%
• 1Y: 29.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBGB vs. CMCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IBGB iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF	-0.23%	2.71%
CMCI VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF	21.96%	3.35%

Correlation

The correlation between IBGB and CMCI is -0.24, 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	-0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.22

Return for Risk

IBGB vs. CMCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBGB

IBGB Risk / Return Rank: 16
IBGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
IBGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
IBGB Omega Ratio Rank: 15
IBGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
IBGB Martin Ratio Rank: 17

CMCI

CMCI Risk / Return Rank: 80
CMCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CMCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
CMCI Omega Ratio Rank: 75
CMCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
CMCI Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

IBGB vs. CMCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) and VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI). 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.

	IBGB	CMCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.49	2.46	-1.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.75	3.32	-2.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.44	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.60	5.97	-5.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.61	15.52	-13.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBGB vs. CMCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBGB Sharpe Ratio is 0.49, which is lower than the CMCI Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBGB and CMCI, 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

	IBGB	CMCI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49	2.46	-1.97
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.91	-0.69

Drawdowns

IBGB vs. CMCI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBGB drawdown since its inception was -8.09%, smaller than the maximum CMCI drawdown of -11.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBGB and CMCI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBGB	CMCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.09%	-11.54%	+3.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.79%	-5.03%	-1.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.02%	-3.94%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.17%	-3.54%	+0.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.52%	1.93%	+0.59%

Volatility

IBGB vs. CMCI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) is 2.58%, while VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) has a volatility of 4.29%. This indicates that IBGB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMCI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBGB	CMCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.58%	4.29%	-1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.79%	10.19%	-4.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.44%	12.23%	-3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.52%	12.63%	-3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.52%	12.63%	-3.11%

IBGB vs. CMCI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBGB has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CMCI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBGB vs. CMCI - Dividend Comparison

IBGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.63%, less than CMCI's 8.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMCI VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF	8.11%	9.89%	3.93%	1.64%
IBGB iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF	4.63%	3.53%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBGB and CMCI in my portfolio?

IBGB and CMCI have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBGB or CMCI?

CMCI has higher volatility (4.29%) compared to IBGB (2.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBGB dropped -8.09% vs CMCI's -11.54%.

Which ETF is better, IBGB or CMCI?

On 1-year performance, CMCI leads with 29.90% vs 4.04% for IBGB. On fees, IBGB is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBGB has been the lower-risk option at 2.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBGB or CMCI?

Over the 1-year period, CMCI has performed better with a 29.90% return vs 4.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBGB or CMCI?

IBGB is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMCI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBGB or CMCI?

CMCI has the higher dividend yield at 8.11%, compared with 4.63% for IBGB.

What is the main difference between IBGB and CMCI?

IBGB is categorized as Government Bonds, while CMCI is Commodities. IBGB tracks ICE 2045 Maturity US Treasury Index, while CMCI tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Composite Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBGB and 0.65% for CMCI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 0.49), 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.