IBMO vs. MFUT

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

IBMO (iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF) and MFUT (Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMO is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2026 Index, while MFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Cambria. IBMO is passively managed, while MFUT is actively managed. Over the past year, IBMO returned 2.50% vs 25.70% for MFUT. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. IBMO charges 0.18%/yr vs 1.18%/yr for MFUT.

Performance

IBMO vs. MFUT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO) and Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBMO achieves a 0.97% return, which is significantly lower than MFUT's 10.89% return.

IBMO

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.13%
• YTD: 0.97%
• 6M: 0.76%
• 1Y: 2.50%
• 3Y*: 2.78%
• 5Y*: 0.71%
• 10Y*: —

MFUT

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: -7.15%
• YTD: 10.89%
• 6M: 9.53%
• 1Y: 25.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBMO vs. MFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.97%	3.11%	2.55%
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF	10.89%	-1.83%	-16.64%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMO and MFUT 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2024	-0.03

Return for Risk

IBMO vs. MFUT — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBMO

IBMO Risk / Return Rank: 88
IBMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
IBMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
IBMO Omega Ratio Rank: 86
IBMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
IBMO Martin Ratio Rank: 92

MFUT

MFUT Risk / Return Rank: 56
MFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
MFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
MFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 62
MFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
MFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

IBMO vs. MFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO) and Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT). 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.

	IBMO	MFUT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	1.69	+0.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.65	2.13	+1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.33	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.63	2.61	+4.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.69	8.23	+11.46

IBMO vs. MFUT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBMO Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is higher than the MFUT Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBMO and MFUT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IBMO vs. MFUT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMO drawdown since its inception was -14.77%, smaller than the maximum MFUT drawdown of -29.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMO and MFUT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMO	MFUT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.77%	-29.28%	+14.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.38%	-9.89%	+9.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-8.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-9.89%	+9.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.31%	-16.26%	+13.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.13%	3.13%	-3.00%

Volatility

IBMO vs. MFUT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO) is 0.22%, while Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF (MFUT) has a volatility of 4.88%. This indicates that IBMO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MFUT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBMO	MFUT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.22%	4.88%	-4.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.78%	13.35%	-12.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.10%	15.28%	-14.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.14%	13.60%	-11.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.50%	13.60%	-9.10%

IBMO vs. MFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMO has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than MFUT's 1.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBMO vs. MFUT - Dividend Comparison

IBMO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.39%, while MFUT has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF	2.39%	2.37%	2.15%	1.65%	0.89%	0.62%	1.03%	1.01%
MFUT Cambria Chesapeake Pure Trend ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMO and MFUT in my portfolio?

IBMO and MFUT 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.

Which is riskier, IBMO or MFUT?

MFUT has higher volatility (4.88%) compared to IBMO (0.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMO dropped -14.77% vs MFUT's -29.28%.

Which ETF is better, IBMO or MFUT?

On 1-year performance, MFUT leads with 25.70% vs 2.50% for IBMO. On fees, IBMO is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMO has been the lower-risk option at 0.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBMO or MFUT?

Over the 1-year period, MFUT has performed better with a 25.70% return vs 2.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMO or MFUT?

IBMO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.18% for MFUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBMO or MFUT?

IBMO has the higher dividend yield at 2.39%, compared with 0.00% for MFUT.

What is the main difference between IBMO and MFUT?

IBMO is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while MFUT is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMO and 1.18% for MFUT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.69), 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.