MUND vs. IBMO
MUND (Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF) and IBMO (iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. MUND is actively managed, while IBMO is passively managed. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.18% expense ratio.
Performance
MUND vs. IBMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MUND achieves a 1.81% return, which is significantly higher than IBMO's 0.97% return.
MUND
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- 1.11%
- YTD
- 1.81%
- 6M
- 2.16%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IBMO
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 0.13%
- YTD
- 0.97%
- 6M
- 1.00%
- 1Y
- 2.48%
- 3Y*
- 2.78%
- 5Y*
- 0.71%
- 10Y*
- —
MUND vs. IBMO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 1.81% | 4.41% |
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.97% | 0.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUND and IBMO is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 19, 2025 | 0.10 |
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
MUND vs. IBMO — Risk / Return Rank
MUND
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IBMO
MUND vs. IBMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF (MUND) 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.
| MUND | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.45 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 6.58 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 19.52 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MUND vs. IBMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUND drawdown since its inception was -4.19%, smaller than the maximum IBMO drawdown of -14.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUND and IBMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUND | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.19% | -14.77% | +10.58% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -0.38% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -1.76% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -8.86% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.45% | -0.08% | -1.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.87% | -2.30% | +0.43% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.13% | — |
Volatility
MUND vs. IBMO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUND | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.24% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 0.79% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.08% | 1.11% | +5.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.08% | 2.14% | +4.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.08% | 4.50% | +2.58% |
MUND vs. IBMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both MUND and IBMO have an expense ratio of 0.18%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
MUND vs. IBMO - Dividend Comparison
MUND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.79%, more than IBMO's 2.39% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 2.79% | 1.32% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MUND 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.
Both ETFs have the same 0.18% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MUND and IBMO have the same expense ratio: 0.18% per year.
MUND has the higher dividend yield at 2.79%, compared with 2.39% for IBMO.
They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and iShares.
Find the right allocation for MUND 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