MLN vs. IBMM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MLN (VanEck Long Muni ETF) and IBMM (iShares iBonds Dec 2024 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - MLN tracks the Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous while IBMM tracks the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2024 Index. Both are passively managed. MLN charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMM.

Performance

MLN vs. IBMM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) and iShares iBonds Dec 2024 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

MLN

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 1.92%
• 6M: 2.58%
• 1Y: 9.33%
• 3Y*: 3.46%
• 5Y*: -1.05%
• 10Y*: 1.49%

IBMM

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MLN vs. IBMM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF	1.47%
IBMM iShares iBonds Dec 2024 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%

Return for Risk

MLN vs. IBMM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MLN

MLN Risk / Return Rank: 69
MLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
MLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
MLN Omega Ratio Rank: 75
MLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
MLN Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

MLN vs. IBMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) and iShares iBonds Dec 2024 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMM). 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.

	MLN	IBMM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.15	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.66	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.02	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MLN	IBMM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.11	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.14	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.17	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	—	—

Drawdowns

MLN vs. IBMM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MLN drawdown since its inception was -28.36%, which is greater than IBMM's maximum drawdown of 0.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLN and IBMM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MLN	IBMM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.36%	0.00%	-28.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.58%	0.00%	-6.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.73%	0.00%	-5.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.78%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MLN	IBMM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.56%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.19%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.45%	0.00%	+4.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.31%	0.00%	+7.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.88%	0.00%	+8.88%

MLN vs. IBMM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MLN has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMM's 0.18% 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

MLN vs. IBMM - Dividend Comparison

MLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.71%, while IBMM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBMM iShares iBonds Dec 2024 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF	3.71%	3.73%	3.59%	3.19%	2.67%	2.52%	2.69%	2.98%	3.09%	2.91%	3.16%	3.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Which ETF is better, MLN or IBMM?

On fees, IBMM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MLN or IBMM?

IBMM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for MLN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MLN or IBMM?

MLN has the higher dividend yield at 3.71%, compared with 0.00% for IBMM.

What is the main difference between MLN and IBMM?

MLN tracks Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous, while IBMM tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2024 Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for MLN and 0.18% for IBMM.