IBMS vs. DGRO
IBMS (iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF) and DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth 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 DGRO is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBMS returned 4.50% vs 22.54% for DGRO. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMS charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for DGRO.
Performance
IBMS vs. DGRO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMS achieves a 0.35% return, which is significantly lower than DGRO's 8.76% return.
IBMS
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 0.87%
- 1Y
- 4.50%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
DGRO
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 3.14%
- YTD
- 8.76%
- 6M
- 8.75%
- 1Y
- 22.54%
- 3Y*
- 16.99%
- 5Y*
- 10.54%
- 10Y*
- 13.30%
IBMS vs. DGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
IBMS iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.35% | 5.36% | 3.03% |
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF | 8.76% | 15.69% | 8.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMS and DGRO is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2024 | 0.14 |
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. DGRO — Risk / Return Rank
IBMS
DGRO
IBMS vs. DGRO - 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 Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO). 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 | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.17 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.48 | 1.43 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.00 | 3.50 | -1.50 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.41 | 13.52 | -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 | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.23 | 2.39 | -0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.77 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.80 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.42 | 0.76 | +0.65 |
Drawdowns
IBMS vs. DGRO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMS drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum DGRO drawdown of -35.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMS and DGRO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMS | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.01% | -35.10% | +32.09% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.25% | -6.47% | +4.22% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.03% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.31% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.10% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.17% | -0.28% | -0.89% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.70% | -3.44% | +2.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.83% | 1.67% | -0.84% |
Volatility
IBMS vs. DGRO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2030 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMS) is 0.59%, while iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) has a volatility of 2.21%. This indicates that IBMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DGRO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMS | DGRO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.59% | 2.21% | -1.62% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.43% | 6.91% | -5.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.03% | 9.48% | -7.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.07% | 13.82% | -10.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.07% | 16.62% | -13.55% |
IBMS vs. DGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than DGRO's 0.08% expense ratio. However, 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. DGRO - Dividend Comparison
IBMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, more than DGRO's 1.96% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF | 1.96% | 2.09% | 2.26% | 2.45% | 2.34% | 1.93% | 2.30% | 2.21% | 2.44% | 2.03% | 2.27% | 2.52% |
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 DGRO have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DGRO has higher volatility (2.21%) compared to IBMS (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMS dropped -3.01% vs DGRO's -35.10%.
On 1-year performance, DGRO leads with 22.54% vs 4.50% for IBMS. On fees, DGRO is cheaper at 0.08% 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, DGRO has performed better with a 22.54% return vs 4.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DGRO is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IBMS.
IBMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 1.96% for DGRO.
IBMS is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while DGRO is Large Cap Growth Equities. IBMS tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2030 Index, while DGRO tracks Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMS and 0.08% for DGRO.
DGRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 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 DGRO
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