IBMN vs. IWM
IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMN is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IBMN returned 0.47%/yr vs 6.11%/yr for IWM. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. IBMN charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IBMN vs. IWM - 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*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- -1.37%
- 1M
- 3.52%
- YTD
- 17.07%
- 6M
- 15.83%
- 1Y
- 39.10%
- 3Y*
- 17.88%
- 5Y*
- 6.11%
- 10Y*
- 10.93%
IBMN vs. IWM - 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% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 17.07% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMN and IWM is 0.08, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2018 | -0.03 |
The correlation between IBMN and IWM shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (all time) to 0.08 (1 year), 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. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IBMN
IWM
IBMN vs. IWM - 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 iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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 | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.07 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.66 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.66 | 1.34 | +0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.02 | 3.56 | +2.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 24.21 | 12.64 | +11.57 |
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 | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.12 | 2.05 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.58 | 0.37 | +0.22 |
Drawdowns
IBMN vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMN drawdown since its inception was -12.40%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMN and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMN | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.40% | -59.05% | +46.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.25% | -11.03% | +10.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -1.10% | -27.50% | +26.40% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -7.36% | -31.91% | +24.55% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.05% | -1.49% | +1.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.81% | -10.77% | +8.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.10% | 3.10% | -3.00% |
Volatility
IBMN vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) is 0.00%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that IBMN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMN | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.00% | 5.75% | -5.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.50% | 13.53% | -13.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.71% | 19.20% | -18.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.80% | 22.52% | -20.72% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.89% | 23.04% | -19.15% |
IBMN vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMN has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM'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
IBMN vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IBMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.88% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMN and IWM have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMN dropped -12.40% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.11% 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, IWM has performed better with a 6.11% 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 0.19% for IWM.
IBMN has the higher dividend yield at 1.14%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
IBMN is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IBMN tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMN and 0.19% for IWM.
IBMN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.05), 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 IWM
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