IBMP vs. ZMUN
IBMP (iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF) and ZMUN (F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - IBMP tracks the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Callable Factor Adjusted 2027 Series Index while ZMUN tracks the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMP charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZMUN.
Performance
IBMP vs. ZMUN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMP achieves a 0.89% return, which is significantly lower than ZMUN's 1.57% return.
IBMP
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.89%
- 6M
- 1.26%
- 1Y
- 3.04%
- 3Y*
- 2.97%
- 5Y*
- 0.59%
- 10Y*
- —
ZMUN
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 1.57%
- 6M
- 1.86%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMP vs. ZMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMP iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.89% | 0.50% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 1.57% | 0.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMP and ZMUN is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025 | 0.10 |
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. ZMUN — Risk / Return Rank
IBMP
ZMUN
IBMP vs. ZMUN - 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 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.
| IBMP | ZMUN | 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 | 5.14 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.24 | — | — |
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 | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.83 | — | — |
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 | 6.46 | -6.08 |
Drawdowns
IBMP vs. ZMUN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMP drawdown since its inception was -15.24%, which is greater than ZMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMP and ZMUN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMP | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.24% | -0.09% | -15.15% |
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 | -0.01% | -0.02% | +0.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.72% | -0.01% | -2.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.21% | — | — |
Volatility
IBMP vs. ZMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMP | ZMUN | 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% | 0.54% | +0.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.56% | 0.54% | +2.02% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.01% | 0.54% | +4.47% |
IBMP vs. ZMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMP has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMUN's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMP vs. ZMUN - Dividend Comparison
IBMP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%, more than ZMUN's 2.28% 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% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 2.28% | 0.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMP and ZMUN have a correlation of 0.10, 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 0.30% for ZMUN.
IBMP has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 2.28% for ZMUN.
IBMP tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Callable Factor Adjusted 2027 Series 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 IBMP and 0.30% for ZMUN.
Find the right allocation for IBMP 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