NBSM vs. IBTF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NBSM (Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF) and IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NBSM is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman, while IBTF is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index. NBSM is actively managed, while IBTF is passively managed. Over the past year, NBSM returned 8.81% vs 2.14% for IBTF. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. NBSM charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTF.

Performance

NBSM vs. IBTF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF (NBSM) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

NBSM

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 5.59%
• 6M: 3.81%
• 1Y: 8.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBTF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.09%
• 1Y: 2.14%
• 3Y*: 3.66%
• 5Y*: 0.90%
• 10Y*: —

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

NBSM vs. IBTF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBSM Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF	5.59%	-0.04%	-0.40%
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	0.00%	3.81%	4.15%

Correlation

The correlation between NBSM and IBTF is -0.04, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024	-0.01

Return for Risk

NBSM vs. IBTF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBSM

NBSM Risk / Return Rank: 20
NBSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
NBSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
NBSM Omega Ratio Rank: 19
NBSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
NBSM Martin Ratio Rank: 22

IBTF

IBTF Risk / Return Rank: 99
IBTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Omega Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

NBSM vs. IBTF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF (NBSM) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). 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.

	NBSM	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	7.08	-6.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.00	20.07	-19.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	6.23	-5.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.87	59.41	-58.53
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.62	269.70	-267.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NBSM vs. IBTF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBSM Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the IBTF Sharpe Ratio of 7.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBSM and IBTF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NBSM	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59	7.08	-6.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	0.44	-0.32

Drawdowns

NBSM vs. IBTF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBSM drawdown since its inception was -25.16%, which is greater than IBTF's maximum drawdown of -10.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBSM and IBTF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBSM	IBTF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.16%	-10.45%	-14.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.12%	-0.04%	-10.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.67%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.11%	0.00%	-5.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-3.33%	-4.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	0.01%	+3.36%

Volatility

NBSM vs. IBTF - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF (NBSM) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) at 0.00%. This indicates that NBSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBSM	IBTF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	0.00%	+3.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.62%	0.19%	+10.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.98%	0.36%	+14.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.09%	2.38%	+15.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.09%	2.56%	+15.53%

NBSM vs. IBTF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBSM has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTF's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBSM vs. IBTF - Dividend Comparison

NBSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than IBTF's 2.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	2.08%	3.83%	4.32%	4.03%	1.93%	0.57%	0.59%
NBSM Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.38%	0.40%	0.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBSM and IBTF in my portfolio?

NBSM and IBTF have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBSM or IBTF?

NBSM has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to IBTF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBSM dropped -25.16% vs IBTF's -10.45%.

Which ETF is better, NBSM or IBTF?

On 1-year performance, NBSM leads with 8.81% vs 2.14% for IBTF. On fees, IBTF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTF has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBSM or IBTF?

Over the 1-year period, NBSM has performed better with a 8.81% return vs 2.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBSM or IBTF?

IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for NBSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBSM or IBTF?

IBTF has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 0.38% for NBSM.

What is the main difference between NBSM and IBTF?

NBSM is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while IBTF is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NBSM and 0.07% for IBTF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBTF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.08 vs 0.59), 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.