IBMS vs. BPH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBMS (iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF) and BPH (BP p.l.c. ADRhedged 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 BPH is a Oil & Gas fund actively managed by Precidian. IBMS is passively managed, while BPH is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. IBMS charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for BPH.

Performance

IBMS vs. BPH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMS) and BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

IBMS

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 0.35%
• 6M: 0.87%
• 1Y: 4.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BPH

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBMS vs. BPH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.38%
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	2.83%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMS and BPH is -0.14, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 27, 2026	-0.14

Return for Risk

IBMS vs. BPH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IBMS

IBMS Risk / Return Rank: 60
IBMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IBMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
IBMS Omega Ratio Rank: 82
IBMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
IBMS Martin Ratio Rank: 36

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

IBMS vs. BPH - 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 BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF (BPH). 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	BPH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.30	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.41	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IBMS	BPH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	9.48	-8.06

Drawdowns

IBMS vs. BPH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMS drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, which is greater than BPH's maximum drawdown of -2.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMS and BPH.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMS	BPH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-2.35%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	0.00%	-1.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.70%	-1.08%	+0.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IBMS	BPH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.43%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03%	25.75%	-23.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.07%	25.75%	-22.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.07%	25.75%	-22.68%

IBMS vs. BPH - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than BPH'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

IBMS vs. BPH - Dividend Comparison

IBMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, while BPH has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BPH BP p.l.c. ADRhedged ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF	2.52%	2.49%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMS and BPH in my portfolio?

IBMS and BPH have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IBMS or BPH?

On fees, IBMS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMS or BPH?

IBMS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for BPH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBMS or BPH?

IBMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 0.00% for BPH.

What is the main difference between IBMS and BPH?

IBMS is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BPH is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Precidian. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMS and 0.19% for BPH.