IBMQ vs. PCLG
IBMQ (iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF) and PCLG (Polen Focus Growth 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 PCLG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Polen. IBMQ is passively managed, while PCLG is actively managed. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMQ charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for PCLG.
Performance
IBMQ vs. PCLG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMQ achieves a 0.69% return, which is significantly higher than PCLG's -6.70% return.
IBMQ
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 0.16%
- YTD
- 0.69%
- 6M
- 1.27%
- 1Y
- 3.49%
- 3Y*
- 2.96%
- 5Y*
- 0.48%
- 10Y*
- —
PCLG
- 1D
- -1.68%
- 1M
- 2.51%
- YTD
- -6.70%
- 6M
- -7.08%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMQ vs. PCLG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMQ iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.69% | 0.56% |
PCLG Polen Focus Growth ETF | -6.70% | -1.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMQ and PCLG is 0.08, 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 Oct 1, 2025 | 0.08 |
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. PCLG — Risk / Return Rank
IBMQ
PCLG
IBMQ vs. PCLG - 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 Polen Focus Growth ETF (PCLG). 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.
| IBMQ | PCLG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.61 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.11 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.20 | — | — |
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
| IBMQ | PCLG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.91 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.36 | -0.64 | +1.00 |
Drawdowns
IBMQ vs. PCLG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMQ drawdown since its inception was -15.85%, smaller than the maximum PCLG drawdown of -23.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMQ and PCLG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMQ | PCLG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.85% | -23.78% | +7.93% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.57% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.51% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.33% | -10.80% | +10.47% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.26% | -9.68% | +6.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.43% | — | — |
Volatility
IBMQ vs. PCLG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMQ | PCLG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.34% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.88% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.21% | 17.74% | -16.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.96% | 17.74% | -14.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.55% | 17.74% | -12.19% |
IBMQ vs. PCLG - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMQ has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than PCLG's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMQ vs. PCLG - Dividend Comparison
IBMQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than PCLG's 0.04% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMQ iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF | 2.45% | 2.43% | 2.33% | 1.93% | 1.25% | 1.05% | 1.24% | 1.03% |
PCLG Polen Focus Growth ETF | 0.04% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMQ and PCLG have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBMQ is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBMQ is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for PCLG.
IBMQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.45%, compared with 0.04% for PCLG.
IBMQ is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while PCLG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Polen. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMQ and 0.49% for PCLG.
Find the right allocation for IBMQ and PCLG
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