IBIF vs. AAUS
IBIF (iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF) and AAUS (Alpha Architect US Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBIF is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2029 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while AAUS is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. IBIF is passively managed, while AAUS is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. IBIF charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for AAUS.
Performance
IBIF vs. AAUS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBIF achieves a 1.81% return, which is significantly lower than AAUS's 9.99% return.
IBIF
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.08%
- YTD
- 1.81%
- 6M
- 1.76%
- 1Y
- 4.69%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AAUS
- 1D
- 0.47%
- 1M
- 4.65%
- YTD
- 9.99%
- 6M
- 9.87%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBIF vs. AAUS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF | 1.81% | 1.59% |
AAUS Alpha Architect US Equity ETF | 9.99% | 9.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBIF and AAUS is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2025 | -0.00 |
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
IBIF vs. AAUS — Risk / Return Rank
IBIF
AAUS
IBIF vs. AAUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) and Alpha Architect US Equity ETF (AAUS). 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.
| IBIF | AAUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.96 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.65 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IBIF | AAUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.33 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.70 | 1.95 | -0.25 |
Drawdowns
IBIF vs. AAUS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBIF drawdown since its inception was -2.50%, smaller than the maximum AAUS drawdown of -9.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIF and AAUS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBIF | AAUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.50% | -9.13% | +6.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.95% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.21% | -0.27% | +0.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.55% | -1.31% | +0.76% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.29% | — | — |
Volatility
IBIF vs. AAUS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBIF | AAUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.45% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.33% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.03% | 12.43% | -10.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.54% | 12.43% | -8.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.54% | 12.43% | -8.89% |
IBIF vs. AAUS - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBIF has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than AAUS'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
IBIF vs. AAUS - Dividend Comparison
IBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%, more than AAUS's 0.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AAUS Alpha Architect US Equity ETF | 0.33% | 0.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF | 3.74% | 4.51% | 4.05% | 0.96% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBIF and AAUS have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBIF is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBIF is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for AAUS.
IBIF has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.33% for AAUS.
IBIF is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while AAUS is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBIF and 0.15% for AAUS.
Find the right allocation for IBIF and AAUS
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