IBHH vs. FLMI

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IBHH (iShares iBonds 2028 Term High Yield and Income ETF) and FLMI (Franklin Liberty Federal Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Opportunities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBHH is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 2028 Term High Yield and Income Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FLMI is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton. IBHH is passively managed, while FLMI is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBHH returned 8.51%/yr vs 6.04%/yr for FLMI. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBHH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for FLMI.

Performance

IBHH vs. FLMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds 2028 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHH) and Franklin Liberty Federal Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Opportunities ETF (FLMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBHH achieves a 1.72% return, which is significantly lower than FLMI's 2.35% return.

IBHH

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 1.72%
• 6M: 2.48%
• 1Y: 6.84%
• 3Y*: 8.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLMI

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.89%
• YTD: 2.35%
• 6M: 2.67%
• 1Y: 8.32%
• 3Y*: 6.04%
• 5Y*: 2.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

IBHH vs. FLMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBHH iShares iBonds 2028 Term High Yield and Income ETF	1.72%	8.02%	7.53%	12.87%	-6.70%
FLMI Franklin Liberty Federal Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Opportunities ETF	2.35%	5.89%	4.91%	7.89%	-5.76%

Correlation

The correlation between IBHH and FLMI is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 11, 2022	0.35

Return for Risk

IBHH vs. FLMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBHH

IBHH Risk / Return Rank: 83
IBHH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
IBHH Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
IBHH Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBHH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IBHH Martin Ratio Rank: 90

FLMI

FLMI Risk / Return Rank: 75
FLMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FLMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FLMI Omega Ratio Rank: 91
FLMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
FLMI Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

IBHH vs. FLMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds 2028 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHH) and Franklin Liberty Federal Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Opportunities ETF (FLMI). 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.

	IBHH	FLMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.70	-0.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.74	4.08	-0.35
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.61	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.38	2.82	+2.56
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	21.61	10.17	+11.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBHH vs. FLMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBHH Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the FLMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBHH and FLMI, 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

	IBHH	FLMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44	2.70	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.73	0.65	+0.09

Drawdowns

IBHH vs. FLMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBHH drawdown since its inception was -12.05%, smaller than the maximum FLMI drawdown of -14.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBHH and FLMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBHH	FLMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.05%	-14.66%	+2.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.22%	-2.90%	+1.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.66%	-5.31%	+0.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-14.66%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-0.29%	+0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.30%	-2.82%	+0.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	0.80%	-0.50%

Volatility

IBHH vs. FLMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds 2028 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHH) is 0.81%, while Franklin Liberty Federal Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Opportunities ETF (FLMI) has a volatility of 1.01%. This indicates that IBHH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBHH	FLMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.81%	1.01%	-0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.09%	2.04%	+0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.83%	3.10%	-0.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.26%	4.45%	+2.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.26%	4.72%	+2.54%

IBHH vs. FLMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBHH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FLMI's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBHH vs. FLMI - Dividend Comparison

IBHH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.26%, more than FLMI's 3.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLMI Franklin Liberty Federal Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Opportunities ETF	3.87%	3.89%	4.08%	3.71%	3.08%	2.22%	2.09%	2.71%	2.41%	0.34%
IBHH iShares iBonds 2028 Term High Yield and Income ETF	6.26%	6.39%	6.93%	6.65%	5.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBHH and FLMI in my portfolio?

IBHH and FLMI have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBHH or FLMI?

FLMI has higher volatility (1.01%) compared to IBHH (0.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBHH dropped -12.05% vs FLMI's -14.66%.

Which ETF is better, IBHH or FLMI?

On 3-year performance, IBHH leads with 8.51% vs 6.04% for FLMI. On fees, FLMI is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, IBHH has been the lower-risk option at 0.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBHH or FLMI?

Over the 3-year period, IBHH has performed better with a 8.51% return vs 6.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBHH or FLMI?

FLMI is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for IBHH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBHH or FLMI?

IBHH has the higher dividend yield at 6.26%, compared with 3.87% for FLMI.

What is the main difference between IBHH and FLMI?

IBHH is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while FLMI is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for IBHH and 0.30% for FLMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 2.44), 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.