IBMS vs. ACWI
IBMS (iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF) and ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMS is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2030 Index, while ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBMS returned 4.50% vs 29.18% for ACWI. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMS charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for ACWI.
Performance
IBMS vs. ACWI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMS achieves a 0.35% return, which is significantly lower than ACWI's 12.13% return.
IBMS
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 0.87%
- 1Y
- 4.50%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ACWI
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- 5.28%
- YTD
- 12.13%
- 6M
- 12.96%
- 1Y
- 29.18%
- 3Y*
- 21.15%
- 5Y*
- 11.28%
- 10Y*
- 12.85%
IBMS vs. ACWI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.35% | 5.36% | 3.03% |
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | 12.13% | 22.41% | 7.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMS and ACWI is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2024 | 0.17 |
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
IBMS vs. ACWI — Risk / Return Rank
IBMS
ACWI
IBMS vs. ACWI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMS) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). 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.
| IBMS | ACWI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.07 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.13 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.48 | 1.41 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.00 | 3.01 | -1.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.41 | 13.53 | -8.11 |
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
| IBMS | ACWI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.23 | 2.29 | -0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.71 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.75 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.42 | 0.43 | +0.99 |
Drawdowns
IBMS vs. ACWI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMS drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum ACWI drawdown of -56.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMS and ACWI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMS | ACWI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.01% | -56.00% | +52.99% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.25% | -9.73% | +7.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -16.55% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -26.42% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.53% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.17% | -0.83% | -0.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.70% | -8.61% | +7.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.83% | 2.16% | -1.33% |
Volatility
IBMS vs. ACWI - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMS) is 0.59%, while iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that IBMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMS | ACWI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.59% | 3.93% | -3.34% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.43% | 10.29% | -8.86% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.03% | 12.78% | -10.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.07% | 16.05% | -12.98% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.07% | 17.11% | -14.04% |
IBMS vs. ACWI - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWI's 0.32% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBMS vs. ACWI - Dividend Comparison
IBMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, more than ACWI's 1.38% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | 1.38% | 1.55% | 1.70% | 1.88% | 1.79% | 1.71% | 1.43% | 2.33% | 2.18% | 1.94% | 2.19% | 2.56% |
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF | 2.52% | 2.49% | 1.38% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMS and ACWI have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ACWI has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to IBMS (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMS dropped -3.01% vs ACWI's -56.00%.
On 1-year performance, ACWI leads with 29.18% vs 4.50% for IBMS. On fees, IBMS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ACWI has performed better with a 29.18% return vs 4.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for ACWI.
IBMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 1.38% for ACWI.
IBMS is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while ACWI is Global Equities. IBMS tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2030 Index, while ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMS and 0.32% for ACWI.
ACWI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 2.23), 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 IBMS and ACWI
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