IBMR vs. FFUT
IBMR (iShares iBonds Dec 2029 Term Muni Bond ETF) and FFUT (Fidelity Managed Futures ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMR is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted 2029 Index, while FFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Fidelity. IBMR is passively managed, while FFUT is actively managed. Over the past year, IBMR returned 3.49% vs 17.34% for FFUT. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. IBMR charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFUT.
Performance
IBMR vs. FFUT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMR achieves a 0.83% return, which is significantly lower than FFUT's 7.69% return.
IBMR
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.70%
- YTD
- 0.83%
- 6M
- 0.65%
- 1Y
- 3.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.26%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FFUT
- 1D
- -1.06%
- 1M
- -3.71%
- YTD
- 7.69%
- 6M
- 8.36%
- 1Y
- 17.34%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMR vs. FFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMR iShares iBonds Dec 2029 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.83% | 3.13% |
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF | 7.69% | 8.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMR and FFUT is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025 | -0.16 |
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
IBMR vs. FFUT — Risk / Return Rank
IBMR
FFUT
IBMR vs. FFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2029 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMR) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). 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.
| IBMR | FFUT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | 1.30 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.25 | 3.26 | -1.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.79 | 13.04 | -7.26 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IBMR vs. FFUT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMR drawdown since its inception was -4.83%, smaller than the maximum FFUT drawdown of -5.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMR and FFUT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMR | FFUT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.83% | -5.34% | +0.51% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.55% | -5.34% | +3.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.57% | -5.34% | +4.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.01% | -0.97% | -0.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.60% | 1.33% | -0.73% |
Volatility
IBMR vs. FFUT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2029 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMR) is 0.37%, while Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT) has a volatility of 3.07%. This indicates that IBMR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFUT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMR | FFUT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.37% | 3.07% | -2.70% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.15% | 9.04% | -7.89% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.75% | 11.27% | -9.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.04% | 11.05% | -8.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.04% | 11.05% | -8.01% |
IBMR vs. FFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMR has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than FFUT's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMR vs. FFUT - Dividend Comparison
IBMR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.54%, more than FFUT's 1.94% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF | 1.94% | 2.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBMR iShares iBonds Dec 2029 Term Muni Bond ETF | 2.54% | 2.55% | 2.53% | 1.27% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMR and FFUT have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FFUT has higher volatility (3.07%) compared to IBMR (0.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMR dropped -4.83% vs FFUT's -5.34%.
On 1-year performance, FFUT leads with 17.34% vs 3.49% for IBMR. On fees, IBMR is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMR 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 1-year period, FFUT has performed better with a 17.34% return vs 3.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMR is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FFUT.
IBMR has the higher dividend yield at 2.54%, compared with 1.94% for FFUT.
IBMR is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while FFUT is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMR and 0.80% for FFUT.
IBMR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.55), 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 IBMR and FFUT
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