IBMT vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBMT (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - IBMT is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index, while NRGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBMT returned 6.34% vs 156.99% for NRGU. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions. IBMT charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for NRGU.

Performance

IBMT vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBMT achieves a 0.19% return, which is significantly lower than NRGU's 129.31% return.

IBMT

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 0.19%
• 6M: 0.25%
• 1Y: 6.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NRGU

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: -6.67%
• YTD: 129.31%
• 6M: 97.01%
• 1Y: 156.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBMT vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.19%	7.26%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	129.31%	-30.43%

Correlation

The correlation between IBMT and NRGU is -0.26, 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	-0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.17

Return for Risk

IBMT vs. NRGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBMT

IBMT Risk / Return Rank: 60
IBMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
IBMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBMT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
IBMT Martin Ratio Rank: 39

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 58
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 48
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

IBMT vs. NRGU - 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 MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	2.11	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	2.43	+0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.30	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	3.95	-1.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.13	9.88	-3.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBMT vs. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBMT Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBMT and NRGU, 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

	IBMT	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	2.11	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.45	+1.18

Drawdowns

IBMT vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBMT drawdown since its inception was -3.18%, smaller than the maximum NRGU drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBMT and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBMT	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.18%	-57.50%	+54.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.10%	-39.95%	+36.85%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.65%	-20.91%	+19.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.74%	-25.42%	+24.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	15.96%	-14.92%

Volatility

IBMT vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMT) is 0.78%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 31.63%. This indicates that IBMT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBMT	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.78%	31.63%	-30.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.06%	61.27%	-59.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.11%	75.15%	-72.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.86%	89.15%	-85.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.86%	89.15%	-85.29%

IBMT vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBMT has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than NRGU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBMT vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

IBMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.65%, while NRGU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
IBMT iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Muni Bond ETF	3.65%	2.98%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBMT and NRGU in my portfolio?

IBMT and NRGU have a correlation of -0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBMT or NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (31.63%) compared to IBMT (0.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBMT dropped -3.18% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, IBMT or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 156.99% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, IBMT or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 156.99% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBMT or NRGU?

IBMT is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBMT or NRGU?

IBMT has the higher dividend yield at 3.65%, compared with 0.00% for NRGU.

What is the main difference between IBMT and NRGU?

IBMT is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while NRGU is Leveraged Equities. IBMT tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2031 Index, while NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IBMT and 0.95% for NRGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 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.