IBIF vs. REMG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IBIF (iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF) and REMG (Russell Investments Emerging Markets 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 REMG is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by Russell. IBIF is passively managed, while REMG is actively managed. Over the past year, IBIF returned 2.58% vs 38.10% for REMG. Their 0.03 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IBIF charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for REMG.

Performance

IBIF vs. REMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) and Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBIF achieves a 1.50% return, which is significantly lower than REMG's 18.73% return.

IBIF

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 0.14%
• 6M: 0.80%
• YTD: 1.50%
• 1Y: 2.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.55%

REMG

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: -2.39%
• 6M: 9.08%
• YTD: 18.73%
• 1Y: 38.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 39.24%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF	$539.78K	$483.63K	$471.28K
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$1.87M	$1.04M	$634.75K

IBIF vs. REMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF	1.50%	2.87%
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	18.73%	24.03%

Correlation

The correlation between IBIF and REMG is 0.07, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2025	0.03

Return for Risk

IBIF vs. REMG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IBIF

IBIF Risk / Return Rank: 74
IBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
IBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 70

REMG

REMG Risk / Return Rank: 66
REMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
REMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
REMG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
REMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
REMG Martin Ratio Rank: 67

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IBIF vs. REMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) and Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG). 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.

	IBIF	REMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.50	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.47	2.02	+0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.28	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.29	2.61	+0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.69	8.17	+0.52

IBIF vs. REMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the REMG Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBIF and REMG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IBIF vs. REMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBIF drawdown since its inception was -2.50%, smaller than the maximum REMG drawdown of -14.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIF and REMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBIF	REMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-14.13%	+11.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.95%	-14.13%	+13.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-9.49%	+8.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.55%	-2.58%	+2.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.36%	4.51%	-4.15%

Volatility

IBIF vs. REMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) is 0.47%, while Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) has a volatility of 8.99%. This indicates that IBIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than REMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBIF	REMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.47%	8.99%	-8.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.47%	22.40%	-20.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.02%	24.69%	-22.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.48%	23.31%	-19.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.48%	23.31%	-19.83%

IBIF vs. REMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBIF has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than REMG's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBIF vs. REMG - Dividend Comparison

IBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.94%, more than REMG's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF	4.94%	4.51%	4.05%	0.96%
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.16%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBIF and REMG in my portfolio?

IBIF and REMG have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBIF or REMG?

REMG has higher volatility (8.99%) compared to IBIF (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBIF dropped -2.50% vs REMG's -14.13%.

Which ETF is better, IBIF or REMG?

On 1-year performance, REMG leads with 38.10% vs 2.58% for IBIF. On fees, IBIF is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBIF or REMG?

Over the 1-year period, REMG has performed better with a 38.10% return vs 2.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBIF or REMG?

IBIF is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.64% for REMG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBIF or REMG?

IBIF has the higher dividend yield at 4.94%, compared with 1.16% for REMG.

What is the main difference between IBIF and REMG?

IBIF is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while REMG is Emerging Markets Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Russell. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBIF and 0.64% for REMG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.50), 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.