IBMQ vs. IWM
IBMQ (iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMQ is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2028 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IBMQ returned 0.35%/yr vs 6.99%/yr for IWM. Their 0.06 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IBMQ charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IBMQ vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMQ achieves a 0.90% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.79% return.
IBMQ
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- -0.16%
- 6M
- 0.41%
- YTD
- 0.90%
- 1Y
- 2.02%
- 3Y*
- 2.88%
- 5Y*
- 0.35%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 1.95%
IWM
- 1D
- -0.48%
- 1M
- -2.14%
- 6M
- 12.62%
- YTD
- 18.79%
- 1Y
- 36.90%
- 3Y*
- 15.11%
- 5Y*
- 6.99%
- 10Y*
- 10.70%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.73%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.97M | $1.98M | $1.89M | |
| $6.67B | $6.32B | $7.45B |
IBMQ vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMQ iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.90% | 4.09% | 0.71% | 4.00% | -6.73% | -0.26% | 6.93% | 5.24% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 18.79% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 7.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMQ and IWM is 0.18, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.18 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.21 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2019 | 0.06 |
The correlation between IBMQ and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (all time) to 0.21 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IBMQ vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IBMQ
IWM
IBMQ vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMQ) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.
| IBMQ | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.18 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.30 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.09 | 3.11 | -1.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.46 | 11.02 | -5.56 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBMQ vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMQ drawdown since its inception was -15.85%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMQ and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMQ | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.85% | -59.05% | +43.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.13% | -11.03% | +9.90% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.64% | -27.50% | +24.86% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.45% | -31.91% | +20.46% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.25% | -3.08% | +2.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.19% | -10.71% | +7.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.43% | 3.11% | -2.68% |
Volatility
IBMQ vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMQ) is 0.37%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 3.82%. This indicates that IBMQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMQ | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.37% | 3.82% | -3.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.88% | 14.12% | -13.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.22% | 19.41% | -18.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.94% | 22.48% | -19.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.49% | 23.01% | -17.52% |
IBMQ vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMQ has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
IBMQ vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IBMQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than IWM's 0.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMQ iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF | 2.24% | 2.43% | 2.33% | 1.93% | 1.25% | 1.05% | 1.24% | 1.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.91% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMQ and IWM have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (3.82%) compared to IBMQ (0.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMQ dropped -15.85% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.99% vs 0.35% for IBMQ. On fees, IBMQ is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IWM has performed better with a 6.99% return vs 0.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMQ is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
IBMQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.24%, compared with 0.91% for IWM.
IBMQ is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IBMQ tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2028 Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMQ and 0.19% for IWM.
IBMQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.77), 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.
Find the right allocation for IBMQ and IWM
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