IBGB vs. ZTEN
IBGB (iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF) and ZTEN (F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBGB is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2045 Maturity US Treasury Index, while ZTEN is a Long-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBGB returned -0.26% vs 3.15% for ZTEN. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IBGB charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for ZTEN.
Performance
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBGB achieves a -1.86% return, which is significantly lower than ZTEN's 0.08% return.
IBGB
- 1D
- 0.77%
- 1M
- -2.11%
- 6M
- -1.81%
- YTD
- -1.86%
- 1Y
- -0.26%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 0.52%
ZTEN
- 1D
- 0.60%
- 1M
- -0.73%
- 6M
- 0.06%
- YTD
- 0.08%
- 1Y
- 3.15%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.79%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $32.56K | $33.15K | $77.72K | |
| $51.21K | $43.84K | $104.13K |
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBGB iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF | -1.86% | 2.62% |
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.08% | 6.90% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBGB and ZTEN is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2025 | 0.89 |
The correlation between IBGB and ZTEN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - 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
IBGB vs. ZTEN — Risk / Return Rank
IBGB
ZTEN
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) and F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN). 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.
| IBGB | ZTEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.93 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.00 | 1.11 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.04 | 0.95 | -0.99 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.08 | 2.62 | -2.71 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBGB drawdown since its inception was -8.09%, which is greater than ZTEN's maximum drawdown of -3.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBGB and ZTEN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBGB | ZTEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -8.09% | -3.43% | -4.66% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.79% | -3.32% | -3.47% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.59% | -1.54% | -4.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.31% | -0.86% | -2.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.07% | 1.20% | +1.87% |
Volatility
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Volatility Comparison
iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF (IBGB) has a higher volatility of 2.36% compared to F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) at 1.53%. This indicates that IBGB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZTEN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBGB | ZTEN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.36% | 1.53% | +0.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.21% | 4.07% | +2.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.02% | 4.92% | +3.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.37% | 5.73% | +3.64% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.37% | 5.73% | +3.64% |
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBGB has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than ZTEN's 0.15% 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
IBGB vs. ZTEN - Dividend Comparison
IBGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.74%, less than ZTEN's 5.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
IBGB iShares iBonds Dec 2045 Term Treasury ETF | 4.74% | 3.53% | 0.00% |
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 5.08% | 5.16% | 0.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBGB and ZTEN have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IBGB has higher volatility (2.36%) compared to ZTEN (1.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBGB dropped -8.09% vs ZTEN's -3.43%.
On 1-year performance, ZTEN leads with 3.15% vs -0.26% for IBGB. On fees, IBGB is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, ZTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ZTEN has performed better with a 3.15% return vs -0.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBGB is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for ZTEN.
ZTEN has the higher dividend yield at 5.08%, compared with 4.74% for IBGB.
IBGB is categorized as Government Bonds, while ZTEN is Long-Term Bond. IBGB tracks ICE 2045 Maturity US Treasury Index, while ZTEN tracks ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBGB and 0.15% for ZTEN.
ZTEN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.64 vs -0.03), 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 IBGB and ZTEN
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