IBMP vs. PUSH

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IBMP (iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF) and PUSH (PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. IBMP is passively managed, while PUSH is actively managed. Over the past year, IBMP returned 2.89% vs 3.68% for PUSH. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMP charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PUSH.

Performance

IBMP vs. PUSH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMP) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBMP achieves a 1.01% return, which is significantly lower than PUSH's 1.42% return.

IBMP

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.17%
• YTD: 1.01%
• 6M: 1.09%
• 1Y: 2.89%
• 3Y*: 2.77%
• 5Y*: 0.64%
• 10Y*: —

PUSH

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 1.51%
• 1Y: 3.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBMP vs. PUSH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF	1.01%	3.52%	2.01%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	1.42%	4.16%	1.74%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMP and PUSH is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024	0.28

The correlation between IBMP and PUSH shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (1 year) to 0.28 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBMP vs. PUSH — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBMP

IBMP Risk / Return Rank: 86
IBMP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
IBMP Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
IBMP Omega Ratio Rank: 91
IBMP Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IBMP Martin Ratio Rank: 74

PUSH

PUSH Risk / Return Rank: 88
PUSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
PUSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
PUSH Omega Ratio Rank: 94
PUSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PUSH Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

IBMP vs. PUSH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMP) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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.

	IBMP	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	2.42	+0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.16	3.66	+0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.67	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.89	7.36	-2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.55	18.28	-4.73

IBMP vs. PUSH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBMP Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is comparable to the PUSH Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBMP and PUSH, 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

IBMP vs. PUSH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMP drawdown since its inception was -15.24%, which is greater than PUSH's maximum drawdown of -0.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMP and PUSH.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMP	PUSH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.24%	-0.85%	-14.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.59%	-0.50%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.63%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.00%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-0.01%	-0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.70%	-0.10%	-2.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.21%	0.20%	+0.01%

Volatility

IBMP vs. PUSH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMP) is 0.25%, while PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH) has a volatility of 0.27%. This indicates that IBMP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PUSH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBMP	PUSH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.25%	0.27%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.77%	0.99%	-0.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.07%	1.53%	-0.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.56%	1.29%	+1.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.99%	1.29%	+3.70%

IBMP vs. PUSH - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMP has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than PUSH's 0.15% 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

IBMP vs. PUSH - Dividend Comparison

IBMP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%, less than PUSH's 3.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF	2.50%	2.47%	2.35%	2.05%	1.26%	0.86%	1.16%	1.06%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	3.23%	3.45%	1.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMP and PUSH in my portfolio?

IBMP and PUSH have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBMP or PUSH?

PUSH has higher volatility (0.27%) compared to IBMP (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMP dropped -15.24% vs PUSH's -0.85%.

Which ETF is better, IBMP or PUSH?

On 1-year performance, PUSH leads with 3.68% vs 2.89% for IBMP. On fees, PUSH is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBMP or PUSH?

Over the 1-year period, PUSH has performed better with a 3.68% return vs 2.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMP or PUSH?

PUSH is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IBMP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBMP or PUSH?

PUSH has the higher dividend yield at 3.23%, compared with 2.50% for IBMP.

What is the main difference between IBMP and PUSH?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMP and 0.15% for PUSH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBMP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.42), 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.