MBBA vs. GNMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MBBA (iShares Mortgage-Backed Securities Active ETF) and GNMA (iShares GNMA Bond ETF) are both Mortgage Backed Securities funds from iShares. MBBA is actively managed, while GNMA is passively managed. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MBBA charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for GNMA.

Performance

MBBA vs. GNMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Mortgage-Backed Securities Active ETF (MBBA) and iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

MBBA

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GNMA

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -0.07%
• YTD: 0.56%
• 6M: 0.81%
• 1Y: 6.56%
• 3Y*: 4.20%
• 5Y*: 0.53%
• 10Y*: 1.23%

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

MBBA vs. GNMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
MBBA iShares Mortgage-Backed Securities Active ETF	0.64%
GNMA iShares GNMA Bond ETF	-0.02%

Correlation

The correlation between MBBA and GNMA is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2026	0.77

Return for Risk

MBBA vs. GNMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GNMA

GNMA Risk / Return Rank: 46
GNMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
GNMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
GNMA Omega Ratio Rank: 42
GNMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
GNMA Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

MBBA vs. GNMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Mortgage-Backed Securities Active ETF (MBBA) and iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MBBA	GNMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.08	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.25	+0.15

Drawdowns

MBBA vs. GNMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MBBA drawdown since its inception was -2.83%, smaller than the maximum GNMA drawdown of -17.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MBBA and GNMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MBBA	GNMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.83%	-17.09%	+14.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-2.61%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.13%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.83%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-17.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-1.41%	+0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.12%	-3.66%	+2.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.82%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MBBA	GNMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.54%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	3.14%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.66%	4.30%	+0.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.66%	6.61%	-1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.66%	5.13%	-0.47%

MBBA vs. GNMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MBBA has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than GNMA's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

MBBA vs. GNMA - Dividend Comparison

MBBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.84%, less than GNMA's 4.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GNMA iShares GNMA Bond ETF	4.24%	4.19%	4.15%	3.43%	2.01%	0.64%	1.89%	2.61%	2.41%	2.15%	1.89%	1.50%
MBBA iShares Mortgage-Backed Securities Active ETF	1.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MBBA and GNMA in my portfolio?

MBBA and GNMA have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MBBA or GNMA?

On fees, GNMA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MBBA or GNMA?

GNMA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for MBBA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MBBA or GNMA?

GNMA has the higher dividend yield at 4.24%, compared with 1.84% for MBBA.

What is the main difference between MBBA and GNMA?

Their fees differ too: 0.25% for MBBA and 0.15% for GNMA.