ISMF vs. BILS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ISMF (iShares Managed Futures Active ETF) and BILS (SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ISMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iShares, while BILS is a Ultrashort Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg 3-12 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. ISMF is actively managed, while BILS is passively managed. Over the past year, ISMF returned 22.64% vs 3.90% for BILS. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. ISMF charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BILS.

Performance

ISMF vs. BILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISMF achieves a 8.37% return, which is significantly higher than BILS's 1.40% return.

ISMF

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 8.37%
• 6M: 11.16%
• 1Y: 22.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BILS

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

ISMF vs. BILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ISMF iShares Managed Futures Active ETF	8.37%	11.58%
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	1.40%	3.36%

Correlation

The correlation between ISMF and BILS is -0.16, 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	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 14, 2025	-0.16

Return for Risk

ISMF vs. BILS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISMF

ISMF Risk / Return Rank: 89
ISMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
ISMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
ISMF Omega Ratio Rank: 91
ISMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
ISMF Martin Ratio Rank: 89

BILS

BILS Risk / Return Rank: 100
BILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

ISMF vs. BILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). 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.

	ISMF	BILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.88	16.80	-13.92
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.91	100.82	-96.92
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	42.08	-40.46
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.77	129.91	-124.14
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.96	1,442.41	-1,422.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ISMF vs. BILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is lower than the BILS Sharpe Ratio of 16.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISMF and BILS, 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

	ISMF	BILS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.88	16.80	-13.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	10.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.17	9.79	-7.62

Drawdowns

ISMF vs. BILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISMF drawdown since its inception was -4.23%, which is greater than BILS's maximum drawdown of -0.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISMF and BILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISMF	BILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-0.41%	-3.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.94%	-0.03%	-3.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.04%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.01%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.27%	-0.04%	-1.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.14%	0.00%	+1.14%

Volatility

ISMF vs. BILS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Managed Futures Active ETF (ISMF) has a higher volatility of 1.89% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) at 0.06%. This indicates that ISMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ISMF	BILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.89%	0.06%	+1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.33%	0.14%	+6.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.92%	0.23%	+7.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.78%	0.31%	+7.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.78%	0.30%	+7.48%

ISMF vs. BILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISMF has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than BILS's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISMF vs. BILS - Dividend Comparison

ISMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.75%, more than BILS's 3.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	3.81%	4.08%	5.01%	4.98%	1.61%
ISMF iShares Managed Futures Active ETF	5.75%	6.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISMF and BILS in my portfolio?

ISMF and BILS have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISMF or BILS?

ISMF has higher volatility (1.89%) compared to BILS (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISMF dropped -4.23% vs BILS's -0.41%.

Which ETF is better, ISMF or BILS?

On 1-year performance, ISMF leads with 22.64% vs 3.90% for BILS. On fees, BILS is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISMF or BILS?

Over the 1-year period, ISMF has performed better with a 22.64% return vs 3.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISMF or BILS?

BILS is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for ISMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ISMF or BILS?

ISMF has the higher dividend yield at 5.75%, compared with 3.81% for BILS.

What is the main difference between ISMF and BILS?

ISMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while BILS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for ISMF and 0.14% for BILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.80 vs 2.88), 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.