MLN vs. IBMO
MLN (VanEck Long Muni ETF) and IBMO (iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - MLN tracks the Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous while IBMO tracks the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2026 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MLN returned -0.94%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for IBMO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MLN charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMO.
Performance
MLN vs. IBMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MLN achieves a 2.53% return, which is significantly higher than IBMO's 1.03% return.
MLN
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 2.41%
- YTD
- 2.53%
- 6M
- 2.00%
- 1Y
- 8.68%
- 3Y*
- 3.45%
- 5Y*
- -0.94%
- 10Y*
- 1.37%
IBMO
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.19%
- YTD
- 1.03%
- 6M
- 1.02%
- 1Y
- 2.62%
- 3Y*
- 2.80%
- 5Y*
- 0.72%
- 10Y*
- —
MLN vs. IBMO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF | 2.53% | 1.82% | 1.54% | 8.05% | -17.20% | 2.20% | 6.22% | 6.45% |
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF | 1.03% | 3.11% | 1.97% | 2.90% | -5.36% | -0.16% | 5.48% | 4.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between MLN and IBMO is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2019 | 0.47 |
Over the past year, the correlation between MLN and IBMO has dropped to 0.10 - well below their long-term average of 0.47, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MLN vs. IBMO — Risk / Return Rank
MLN
IBMO
MLN vs. IBMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO). 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.
| MLN | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | 1.49 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.41 | 6.95 | -3.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.19 | 20.64 | -9.45 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MLN vs. IBMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MLN drawdown since its inception was -28.36%, which is greater than IBMO's maximum drawdown of -14.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLN and IBMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MLN | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.36% | -14.77% | -13.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.56% | -0.38% | -2.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.84% | -1.76% | -8.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.46% | -8.86% | -15.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.46% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.02% | 0.00% | -6.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.73% | -2.31% | -3.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.78% | 0.13% | +0.65% |
Volatility
MLN vs. IBMO - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) has a higher volatility of 1.29% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO) at 0.22%. This indicates that MLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MLN | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.29% | 0.22% | +1.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.24% | 0.79% | +2.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.42% | 1.10% | +3.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.32% | 2.14% | +5.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.88% | 4.50% | +4.38% |
MLN vs. IBMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
MLN has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMO'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. IBMO - Dividend Comparison
MLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.69%, more than IBMO's 2.39% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF | 2.39% | 2.37% | 2.15% | 1.65% | 0.89% | 0.62% | 1.03% | 1.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF | 3.69% | 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
MLN and IBMO have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MLN has higher volatility (1.29%) compared to IBMO (0.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MLN dropped -28.36% vs IBMO's -14.77%.
On 5-year performance, IBMO leads with 0.72% vs -0.94% for MLN. On fees, IBMO is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMO has been the lower-risk option at 0.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IBMO has performed better with a 0.72% return vs -0.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for MLN.
MLN has the higher dividend yield at 3.69%, compared with 2.39% for IBMO.
MLN tracks Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous, while IBMO tracks S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2026 Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for MLN and 0.18% for IBMO.
IBMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.97), 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.
Find the right allocation for MLN and IBMO
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer