IBMQ vs. TNGY
IBMQ (iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF) and TNGY (Tortoise Energy Fund) 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 TNGY is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Tortoise Capital. IBMQ is passively managed, while TNGY is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. IBMQ charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for TNGY.
Performance
IBMQ vs. TNGY - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMQ achieves a 0.69% return, which is significantly lower than TNGY's 15.21% return.
IBMQ
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 0.16%
- YTD
- 0.69%
- 6M
- 1.27%
- 1Y
- 3.49%
- 3Y*
- 2.96%
- 5Y*
- 0.48%
- 10Y*
- —
TNGY
- 1D
- 0.39%
- 1M
- -3.15%
- YTD
- 15.21%
- 6M
- 12.60%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMQ vs. TNGY - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMQ iShares iBonds Dec 2028 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.69% | 2.49% |
TNGY Tortoise Energy Fund | 15.21% | 1.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMQ and TNGY 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 Jun 17, 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. TNGY — Risk / Return Rank
IBMQ
TNGY
IBMQ vs. TNGY - 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 Tortoise Energy Fund (TNGY). 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 | TNGY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.91 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 4.41 | — | — |
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 | TNGY | 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 | 1.15 | -0.79 |
Drawdowns
IBMQ vs. TNGY - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMQ drawdown since its inception was -15.85%, which is greater than TNGY's maximum drawdown of -8.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMQ and TNGY.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMQ | TNGY | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.85% | -8.86% | -6.99% |
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% | -3.92% | +3.59% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.26% | -2.18% | -1.08% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.43% | — | — |
Volatility
IBMQ vs. TNGY - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMQ | TNGY | 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% | 15.70% | -14.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.96% | 15.70% | -12.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.55% | 15.70% | -10.15% |
IBMQ vs. TNGY - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMQ has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than TNGY's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMQ vs. TNGY - Dividend Comparison
IBMQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, less than TNGY's 3.41% 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% |
TNGY Tortoise Energy Fund | 3.41% | 2.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMQ and TNGY 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 0.85% for TNGY.
TNGY has the higher dividend yield at 3.41%, compared with 2.45% for IBMQ.
IBMQ is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while TNGY is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Tortoise Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMQ and 0.85% for TNGY.
Find the right allocation for IBMQ and TNGY
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