IBMT vs. IWM
IBMT (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMT is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBMT returned 6.34% vs 39.10% for IWM. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBMT charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IBMT vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBMT achieves a 0.19% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.
IBMT
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- YTD
- 0.19%
- 6M
- 0.25%
- 1Y
- 6.34%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- -1.37%
- 1M
- 3.52%
- YTD
- 17.07%
- 6M
- 15.83%
- 1Y
- 39.10%
- 3Y*
- 17.88%
- 5Y*
- 6.11%
- 10Y*
- 10.93%
IBMT vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.19% | 7.26% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 17.07% | 20.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBMT and IWM is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 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
IBMT vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IBMT
IWM
IBMT vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.
| IBMT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.53 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.34 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.06 | 3.56 | -1.50 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.13 | 12.64 | -6.52 |
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
| IBMT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.05 | 2.05 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.27 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.63 | 0.37 | +1.26 |
Drawdowns
IBMT vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBMT drawdown since its inception was -3.18%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMT and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBMT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.18% | -59.05% | +55.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.10% | -11.03% | +7.93% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -27.50% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.65% | -1.49% | -0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.74% | -10.77% | +10.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.04% | 3.10% | -2.06% |
Volatility
IBMT vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) is 0.78%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that IBMT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBMT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.78% | 5.75% | -4.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.06% | 13.53% | -11.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.11% | 19.20% | -16.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.86% | 22.52% | -18.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.86% | 23.04% | -19.18% |
IBMT vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBMT has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM'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
IBMT vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IBMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.65%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF | 3.65% | 2.98% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.88% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBMT and IWM have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to IBMT (0.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMT dropped -3.18% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 39.10% vs 6.34% for IBMT. On fees, IBMT is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMT has been the lower-risk option at 0.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 39.10% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMT is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
IBMT has the higher dividend yield at 3.65%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
IBMT is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IBMT tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMT and 0.19% for IWM.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 2.05), 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 IBMT and IWM
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