IBMN vs. ZMUN
IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) and ZMUN (F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - IBMN tracks the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index while ZMUN tracks the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. IBMN charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZMUN.
Performance
IBMN vs. ZMUN - 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*
- —
ZMUN
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 1.57%
- 6M
- 1.86%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMN vs. ZMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.00% | 0.38% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 1.57% | 0.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMN and ZMUN is -0.01, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025 | -0.01 |
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. ZMUN — Risk / Return Rank
IBMN
ZMUN
IBMN vs. ZMUN - 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 F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF (ZMUN). 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 | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.66 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.02 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 24.21 | — | — |
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 | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.12 | — | — |
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 | 6.46 | -5.87 |
Drawdowns
IBMN vs. ZMUN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMN drawdown since its inception was -12.40%, which is greater than ZMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMN and ZMUN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMN | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.40% | -0.09% | -12.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.25% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -1.10% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -7.36% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.05% | -0.02% | -0.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.81% | -0.01% | -1.80% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.10% | — | — |
Volatility
IBMN vs. ZMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMN | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.00% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.50% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.71% | 0.54% | +0.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.80% | 0.54% | +1.26% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.89% | 0.54% | +3.35% |
IBMN vs. ZMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMN has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMUN's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMN vs. ZMUN - Dividend Comparison
IBMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than ZMUN's 2.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 2.28% | 0.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMN and ZMUN have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBMN is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBMN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for ZMUN.
ZMUN has the higher dividend yield at 2.28%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.
IBMN tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index, while ZMUN tracks Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMN and 0.30% for ZMUN.
Find the right allocation for IBMN and ZMUN
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