JULW vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

JULW (AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JULW is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. JULW is actively managed, while IBIC is passively managed. Over the past year, JULW returned 11.85% vs 4.42% for IBIC. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. JULW charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

JULW vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF (JULW) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULW achieves a 4.17% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.43% return.

JULW

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 4.17%
• 6M: 4.14%
• 1Y: 11.85%
• 3Y*: 11.22%
• 5Y*: 9.01%
• 10Y*: —

IBIC

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 2.43%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 4.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULW vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JULW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF	4.17%	11.57%	12.39%	3.72%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.43%	4.96%	5.25%	2.17%

Correlation

The correlation between JULW and IBIC 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 Sep 15, 2023	-0.04

The correlation between JULW and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

JULW vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULW

JULW Risk / Return Rank: 91
JULW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
JULW Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
JULW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
JULW Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
JULW Martin Ratio Rank: 93

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

JULW vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF (JULW) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	JULW	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.81	4.99	-2.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.40	8.97	-4.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.62	2.22	-0.60
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	16.56	-12.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.90	58.67	-35.77

JULW vs. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULW Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 4.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULW and IBIC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

JULW vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULW drawdown since its inception was -9.49%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULW and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULW	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.49%	-0.90%	-8.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.96%	-0.27%	-2.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.08%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.91%	-0.10%	-0.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.52%	0.08%	+0.44%

Volatility

JULW vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF (JULW) has a higher volatility of 0.35% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.17%. This indicates that JULW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULW	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.35%	0.17%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.20%	0.67%	+2.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.33%	0.89%	+3.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.89%	1.56%	+5.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.51%	1.56%	+4.95%

JULW vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULW has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULW vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

JULW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.58%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.58%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
JULW AllianzIM U.S. Large Cap Buffer20 Jul ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULW and IBIC in my portfolio?

JULW and IBIC 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, JULW or IBIC?

JULW has higher volatility (0.35%) compared to IBIC (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULW dropped -9.49% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, JULW or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, JULW leads with 11.85% vs 4.42% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULW or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, JULW has performed better with a 11.85% return vs 4.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULW or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for JULW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULW or IBIC?

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 0.00% for JULW.

What is the main difference between JULW and IBIC?

JULW is categorized as Options Trading, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for JULW and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.99 vs 2.81), 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.