IBTL vs. ACWI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBTL (iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Treasury ETF) and ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBTL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2031 Maturity US Treasury Index, while ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBTL returned 2.83%/yr vs 21.15%/yr for ACWI. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBTL charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for ACWI.

Performance

IBTL vs. ACWI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Treasury ETF (IBTL) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBTL achieves a -0.47% return, which is significantly lower than ACWI's 12.13% return.

IBTL

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -0.21%
• YTD: -0.47%
• 6M: -0.69%
• 1Y: 3.77%
• 3Y*: 2.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWI

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 5.28%
• YTD: 12.13%
• 6M: 12.96%
• 1Y: 29.18%
• 3Y*: 21.15%
• 5Y*: 11.28%
• 10Y*: 12.85%

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

IBTL vs. ACWI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IBTL iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Treasury ETF	-0.47%	7.85%	0.36%	3.60%	-15.60%	-1.37%
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	12.13%	22.41%	17.45%	22.27%	-18.39%	2.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IBTL and ACWI is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2021	0.13

The correlation between IBTL and ACWI shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBTL vs. ACWI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBTL

IBTL Risk / Return Rank: 28
IBTL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
IBTL Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
IBTL Omega Ratio Rank: 27
IBTL Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
IBTL Martin Ratio Rank: 28

ACWI

ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 66
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

IBTL vs. ACWI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Treasury ETF (IBTL) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). 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.

	IBTL	ACWI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	2.29	-1.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	3.17	-1.57
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.41	-0.23
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.34	3.01	-1.68
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.90	13.53	-9.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBTL vs. ACWI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBTL Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the ACWI Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBTL and ACWI, 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

	IBTL	ACWI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.05	2.29	-1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.71	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.21	0.43	-0.63

Drawdowns

IBTL vs. ACWI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBTL drawdown since its inception was -20.93%, smaller than the maximum ACWI drawdown of -56.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTL and ACWI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBTL	ACWI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.93%	-56.00%	+35.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.83%	-9.73%	+6.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.38%	-16.55%	+9.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.25%	-0.83%	-6.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.47%	-8.61%	-2.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	2.16%	-1.19%

Volatility

IBTL vs. ACWI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Treasury ETF (IBTL) is 1.08%, while iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that IBTL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBTL	ACWI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.08%	3.93%	-2.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.39%	10.29%	-7.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.62%	12.78%	-9.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.46%	16.05%	-8.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.46%	17.11%	-9.65%

IBTL vs. ACWI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBTL has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWI's 0.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBTL vs. ACWI - Dividend Comparison

IBTL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.97%, more than ACWI's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	1.38%	1.55%	1.70%	1.88%	1.79%	1.71%	1.43%	2.33%	2.18%	1.94%	2.19%	2.56%
IBTL iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Treasury ETF	3.97%	3.93%	4.07%	3.04%	2.36%	0.70%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBTL and ACWI in my portfolio?

IBTL and ACWI have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBTL or ACWI?

ACWI has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to IBTL (1.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBTL dropped -20.93% vs ACWI's -56.00%.

Which ETF is better, IBTL or ACWI?

On 3-year performance, ACWI leads with 21.15% vs 2.83% for IBTL. On fees, IBTL is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTL has been the lower-risk option at 1.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBTL or ACWI?

Over the 3-year period, ACWI has performed better with a 21.15% return vs 2.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBTL or ACWI?

IBTL is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for ACWI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBTL or ACWI?

IBTL has the higher dividend yield at 3.97%, compared with 1.38% for ACWI.

What is the main difference between IBTL and ACWI?

IBTL is categorized as Government Bonds, while ACWI is Global Equities. IBTL tracks ICE 2031 Maturity US Treasury Index, while ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTL and 0.32% for ACWI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACWI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.05), 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.