IBMN vs. FMUN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) and FMUN (Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. IBMN is passively managed, while FMUN is actively managed. Over the past year, IBMN returned 1.20% vs 7.61% for FMUN. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMN charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for FMUN.

Performance

IBMN vs. FMUN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) and Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF (FMUN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

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*: —

FMUN

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.93%
• YTD: 1.69%
• 6M: 2.24%
• 1Y: 7.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBMN vs. FMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%	2.21%
FMUN Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF	1.69%	4.25%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMN and FMUN is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2025	0.16

Return for Risk

IBMN vs. FMUN — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBMN

IBMN Risk / Return Rank: 84
IBMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
IBMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
IBMN Omega Ratio Rank: 93
IBMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBMN Martin Ratio Rank: 93

FMUN

FMUN Risk / Return Rank: 67
FMUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
FMUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FMUN Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FMUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FMUN Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

IBMN vs. FMUN - 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 Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF (FMUN). 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	FMUN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.45	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.51	3.54	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.66	1.53	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.02	2.38	+3.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.21	7.88	+16.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBMN vs. FMUN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBMN Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the FMUN Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBMN and FMUN, 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

	IBMN	FMUN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	2.45	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	1.28	-0.70

Drawdowns

IBMN vs. FMUN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMN drawdown since its inception was -12.40%, which is greater than FMUN's maximum drawdown of -3.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMN and FMUN.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMN	FMUN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.40%	-3.21%	-9.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.25%	-3.21%	+2.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-7.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-0.66%	+0.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.81%	-0.82%	-0.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.10%	0.97%	-0.87%

Volatility

IBMN vs. FMUN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) is 0.00%, while Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF (FMUN) has a volatility of 1.27%. This indicates that IBMN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FMUN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBMN	FMUN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	1.27%	-1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.50%	2.27%	-1.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.71%	3.12%	-2.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.80%	4.06%	-2.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.89%	4.06%	-0.17%

IBMN vs. FMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMN has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than FMUN's 0.05% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IBMN vs. FMUN - Dividend Comparison

IBMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than FMUN's 3.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FMUN Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF	3.29%	2.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMN and FMUN in my portfolio?

IBMN and FMUN have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBMN or FMUN?

FMUN has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMN dropped -12.40% vs FMUN's -3.21%.

Which ETF is better, IBMN or FMUN?

On 1-year performance, FMUN leads with 7.61% vs 1.20% for IBMN. On fees, FMUN is cheaper at 0.05% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, IBMN or FMUN?

Over the 1-year period, FMUN has performed better with a 7.61% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMN or FMUN?

FMUN is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IBMN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBMN or FMUN?

FMUN has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.

What is the main difference between IBMN and FMUN?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMN and 0.05% for FMUN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMUN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 vs 2.12), 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.