IBMP vs. SLJY
IBMP (iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF) and SLJY (Amplify SILJ Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMP is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Callable Factor Adjusted 2027 Series Index, while SLJY is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Amplify. IBMP is passively managed, while SLJY is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. IBMP charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for SLJY.
Performance
IBMP vs. SLJY - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMP achieves a 0.93% return, which is significantly lower than SLJY's 8.47% return.
IBMP
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.93%
- 6M
- 1.30%
- 1Y
- 3.02%
- 3Y*
- 2.93%
- 5Y*
- 0.60%
- 10Y*
- —
SLJY
- 1D
- 0.70%
- 1M
- 4.73%
- YTD
- 8.47%
- 6M
- 17.30%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMP vs. SLJY - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.93% | 0.83% |
SLJY Amplify SILJ Covered Call ETF | 8.47% | 43.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMP and SLJY is -0.00, 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 Aug 20, 2025 | -0.00 |
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
IBMP vs. SLJY — Risk / Return Rank
IBMP
SLJY
IBMP vs. SLJY - 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 Amplify SILJ Covered Call ETF (SLJY). 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.
| IBMP | SLJY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.60 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.10 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.14 | — | — |
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
| IBMP | SLJY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.81 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.38 | 1.52 | -1.14 |
Drawdowns
IBMP vs. SLJY - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMP drawdown since its inception was -15.24%, smaller than the maximum SLJY drawdown of -30.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMP and SLJY.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMP | SLJY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.24% | -30.60% | +15.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.59% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.63% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -10.00% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -21.10% | +21.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.72% | -9.66% | +6.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.21% | — | — |
Volatility
IBMP vs. SLJY - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMP | SLJY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.27% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.79% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.08% | 49.47% | -48.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.56% | 49.47% | -46.91% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.00% | 49.47% | -44.47% |
IBMP vs. SLJY - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMP has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than SLJY's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMP vs. SLJY - Dividend Comparison
IBMP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%, less than SLJY's 16.60% 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% |
SLJY Amplify SILJ Covered Call ETF | 16.60% | 6.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMP and SLJY have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBMP is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBMP is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for SLJY.
SLJY has the higher dividend yield at 16.60%, compared with 2.50% for IBMP.
IBMP is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while SLJY is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMP and 0.75% for SLJY.
Find the right allocation for IBMP and SLJY
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