IBMP vs. RMCA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

IBMP (iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF) and RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. IBMP is passively managed, while RMCA is actively managed. Over the past year, IBMP returned 2.33% vs 6.24% for RMCA. Their 0.45 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IBMP charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for RMCA.

Performance

IBMP vs. RMCA - 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 Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with IBMP having a 1.40% return and RMCA slightly higher at 1.47%.

IBMP

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 0.19%
• 6M: 0.95%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 1Y: 2.33%
• 3Y*: 3.13%
• 5Y*: 0.54%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 1.92%

RMCA

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -1.88%
• 6M: 0.99%
• YTD: 1.47%
• 1Y: 6.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 1.82%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF	$2.19M	$2.05M	$2.04M
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	$65.59K	$81.65K	$95.82K

IBMP vs. RMCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF	1.40%	3.52%	0.47%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	1.47%	2.35%	-0.24%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMP and RMCA is 0.29, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 13, 2024	0.45

The correlation between IBMP and RMCA shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBMP vs. RMCA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IBMP

IBMP Risk / Return Rank: 87
IBMP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
IBMP Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
IBMP Omega Ratio Rank: 89
IBMP Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
IBMP Martin Ratio Rank: 78

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 74
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 70

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IBMP vs. RMCA - 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 Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA). 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	RMCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.18	1.80	+0.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.30	2.65	+0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.38	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.95	2.67	+1.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.86	9.25	+1.62

IBMP vs. RMCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBMP Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the RMCA Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBMP and RMCA, 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. RMCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMP drawdown since its inception was -15.24%, which is greater than RMCA's maximum drawdown of -5.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMP and RMCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMP	RMCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.24%	-5.95%	-9.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.59%	-2.35%	+1.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.94%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.97%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.98%	+1.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.66%	-1.55%	-1.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.22%	0.68%	-0.46%

Volatility

IBMP vs. RMCA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMP) is 0.28%, while Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) has a volatility of 0.98%. This indicates that IBMP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RMCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBMP	RMCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.28%	0.98%	-0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.75%	2.63%	-1.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.08%	3.49%	-2.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.55%	5.23%	-2.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.95%	5.23%	-0.28%

IBMP vs. RMCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMP has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than RMCA's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBMP vs. RMCA - Dividend Comparison

IBMP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, less than RMCA's 4.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF	2.51%	2.47%	2.35%	2.05%	1.26%	0.86%	1.16%	1.06%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.44%	4.51%	1.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMP and RMCA in my portfolio?

IBMP and RMCA have a correlation of 0.29, 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 RMCA?

RMCA has higher volatility (0.98%) compared to IBMP (0.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMP dropped -15.24% vs RMCA's -5.95%.

Which ETF is better, IBMP or RMCA?

On 1-year performance, RMCA leads with 6.24% vs 2.33% for IBMP. On fees, IBMP is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMP has been the lower-risk option at 0.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBMP or RMCA?

Over the 1-year period, RMCA has performed better with a 6.24% return vs 2.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMP or RMCA?

IBMP is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for RMCA.

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

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.44%, compared with 2.51% for IBMP.

What is the main difference between IBMP and RMCA?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMP and 0.55% for RMCA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBMP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 1.80), 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.