IBMN vs. FCA
IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) and FCA (First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMN is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index, while FCA is a China Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IBMN returned 0.47%/yr vs 5.03%/yr for FCA. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMN charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FCA.
Performance
IBMN vs. FCA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
IBMN
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 1.20%
- 3Y*
- 2.44%
- 5Y*
- 0.47%
- 10Y*
- —
FCA
- 1D
- 0.41%
- 1M
- -2.70%
- YTD
- 11.99%
- 6M
- 10.11%
- 1Y
- 44.72%
- 3Y*
- 20.23%
- 5Y*
- 5.03%
- 10Y*
- 9.93%
IBMN vs. FCA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.00% | 2.49% | 2.33% | 2.42% | -4.43% | -0.41% | 4.83% | 6.87% | 2.91% |
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund | 11.99% | 45.20% | 14.07% | -8.28% | -17.61% | -0.65% | 11.80% | 18.72% | -5.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMN and FCA is -0.11, 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 | -0.11 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.02 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2018 | 0.01 |
The correlation between IBMN and FCA shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.06 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IBMN vs. FCA — Risk / Return Rank
IBMN
FCA
IBMN vs. FCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) and First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA). 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.
| IBMN | FCA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.93 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.66 | 1.34 | +0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.02 | 4.04 | +1.98 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 24.21 | 11.48 | +12.74 |
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
| IBMN | FCA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.12 | 2.02 | +0.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 | 0.18 | +0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.37 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.58 | 0.13 | +0.45 |
Drawdowns
IBMN vs. FCA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMN drawdown since its inception was -12.40%, smaller than the maximum FCA drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMN and FCA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMN | FCA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.40% | -45.56% | +33.16% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.25% | -11.13% | +10.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -1.10% | -26.13% | +25.03% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -7.36% | -42.47% | +35.11% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.47% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.05% | -8.50% | +8.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.81% | -21.62% | +19.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.10% | 3.91% | -3.81% |
Volatility
IBMN vs. FCA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) is 0.00%, while First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) has a volatility of 8.33%. This indicates that IBMN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMN | FCA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.00% | 8.33% | -8.33% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.50% | 16.57% | -16.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.71% | 22.29% | -21.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.80% | 27.59% | -25.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.89% | 26.63% | -22.74% |
IBMN vs. FCA - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMN has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than FCA's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMN vs. FCA - Dividend Comparison
IBMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than FCA's 2.30% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund | 2.30% | 2.67% | 5.17% | 5.70% | 6.00% | 4.91% | 4.12% | 3.73% | 3.10% | 2.30% | 2.51% | 4.13% |
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 1.14% | 2.03% | 2.03% | 1.72% | 0.97% | 0.70% | 1.11% | 1.65% | 0.23% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMN and FCA have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FCA has higher volatility (8.33%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMN dropped -12.40% vs FCA's -45.56%.
On 5-year performance, FCA leads with 5.03% vs 0.47% for IBMN. On fees, IBMN is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMN has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FCA has performed better with a 5.03% return vs 0.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FCA.
FCA has the higher dividend yield at 2.30%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.
IBMN is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while FCA is China Equities. IBMN tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index, while FCA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMN and 0.80% for FCA.
IBMN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.02), 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 IBMN and FCA
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