PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IBIG vs. ASMH
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IBIG vs. ASMH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF (IBIG) and ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBIG achieves a 0.89% return, which is significantly lower than ASMH's 70.49% return.


IBIG

1D
0.15%
1M
-0.28%
YTD
0.89%
6M
0.95%
1Y
3.48%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

ASMH

1D
-0.85%
1M
9.98%
YTD
70.49%
6M
71.75%
1Y
124.50%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBIG vs. ASMH - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between IBIG and ASMH is -0.10, 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

-0.10

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2025

-0.12

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

IBIG vs. ASMH — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBIG
IBIG Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
IBIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBIG Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
IBIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBIG Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank

ASMH
ASMH Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
ASMH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASMH Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASMH Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
ASMH Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASMH Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IBIG vs. ASMH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF (IBIG) and ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH). 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.


IBIGASMHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.69

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.43

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.59

7.88

-5.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.80

20.24

-12.45

IBIG vs. ASMH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBIG Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is lower than the ASMH Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBIG and ASMH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IBIG vs. ASMH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBIG drawdown since its inception was -3.21%, smaller than the maximum ASMH drawdown of -15.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIG and ASMH.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IBIGASMHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-3.21%

-15.89%

+12.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.35%

-15.89%

+14.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.17%

-8.00%

+6.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.77%

-4.21%

+3.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.45%

6.18%

-5.73%

Volatility

IBIG vs. ASMH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF (IBIG) is 0.99%, while ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH) has a volatility of 17.32%. This indicates that IBIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASMH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IBIGASMHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.99%

17.32%

-16.33%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.87%

33.27%

-31.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.66%

41.81%

-39.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

4.28%

40.23%

-35.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.28%

40.23%

-35.95%

IBIG vs. ASMH - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBIG has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than ASMH's 0.19% 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

IBIG vs. ASMH - Dividend Comparison

IBIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.92%, more than ASMH's 1.64% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
ASMH
ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF
1.64%0.19%0.00%0.00%
IBIG
iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF
3.92%4.70%4.15%0.78%

Frequently Asked Questions


IBIG and ASMH have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ASMH has higher volatility (17.32%) compared to IBIG (0.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBIG dropped -3.21% vs ASMH's -15.89%.

On 1-year performance, ASMH leads with 124.50% vs 3.48% for IBIG. On fees, IBIG is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIG has been the lower-risk option at 0.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ASMH has performed better with a 124.50% return vs 3.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBIG is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for ASMH.

IBIG has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 1.64% for ASMH.

IBIG is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while ASMH is Technology Equities. IBIG tracks ICE 2030 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while ASMH tracks ASML Holding NV Sponsored ADR. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Precidian Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBIG and 0.19% for ASMH.

ASMH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.01 vs 1.31), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IBIG and ASMH

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