IBMS vs. DCMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBMS (iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF) and DCMT (DoubleLine Commodity Strategy 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 DCMT is a Commodities fund actively managed by DoubleLine. IBMS is passively managed, while DCMT is actively managed. Over the past year, IBMS returned 4.50% vs 42.19% for DCMT. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. IBMS charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for DCMT.

Performance

IBMS vs. DCMT - 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 DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBMS achieves a 0.35% return, which is significantly lower than DCMT's 34.49% return.

IBMS

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

DCMT

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -2.89%
• YTD: 34.49%
• 6M: 33.53%
• 1Y: 42.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBMS vs. DCMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.35%	5.36%	3.03%
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	34.49%	6.04%	-0.79%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMS and DCMT is -0.30, 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	-0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2024	-0.14

The correlation between IBMS and DCMT shifts across timeframes, from -0.30 (1 year) to -0.14 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBMS vs. DCMT — 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

DCMT

DCMT Risk / Return Rank: 76
DCMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
DCMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
DCMT Omega Ratio Rank: 69
DCMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
DCMT Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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. DCMT - 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 DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). 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	DCMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.32	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.30	3.01	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.41	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	6.83	-4.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.41	16.31	-10.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBMS vs. DCMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBMS Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the DCMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBMS and DCMT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IBMS	DCMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	2.32	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	1.20	+0.21

Drawdowns

IBMS vs. DCMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMS drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum DCMT drawdown of -11.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMS and DCMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMS	DCMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-11.95%	+8.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.25%	-6.21%	+3.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-3.46%	+2.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.70%	-3.13%	+2.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	2.59%	-1.76%

Volatility

IBMS vs. DCMT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMS) is 0.59%, while DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT) has a volatility of 6.71%. This indicates that IBMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DCMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBMS	DCMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	6.71%	-6.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.43%	15.87%	-14.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03%	18.27%	-16.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.07%	15.77%	-12.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.07%	15.77%	-12.70%

IBMS vs. DCMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than DCMT's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBMS vs. DCMT - Dividend Comparison

IBMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, less than DCMT's 2.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	2.73%	3.67%	1.59%
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF	2.52%	2.49%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMS and DCMT in my portfolio?

IBMS and DCMT have a correlation of -0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBMS or DCMT?

DCMT has higher volatility (6.71%) compared to IBMS (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMS dropped -3.01% vs DCMT's -11.95%.

Which ETF is better, IBMS or DCMT?

On 1-year performance, DCMT leads with 42.19% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, IBMS or DCMT?

Over the 1-year period, DCMT has performed better with a 42.19% return vs 4.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMS or DCMT?

IBMS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for DCMT.

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

DCMT has the higher dividend yield at 2.73%, compared with 2.52% for IBMS.

What is the main difference between IBMS and DCMT?

IBMS is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while DCMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and DoubleLine. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMS and 0.66% for DCMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DCMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 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.