PY vs. IBMO
PY (Principal Value ETF) and IBMO (iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PY is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Principal, while IBMO is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Callable-Adjusted Dec 2026 Index. PY is actively managed, while IBMO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PY returned 8.18%/yr vs 0.67%/yr for IBMO. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. PY charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMO.
Performance
PY vs. IBMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PY achieves a 6.52% return, which is significantly higher than IBMO's 1.12% return.
PY
- 1D
- 0.39%
- 1M
- 1.50%
- 6M
- 4.75%
- YTD
- 6.52%
- 1Y
- 11.90%
- 3Y*
- 12.50%
- 5Y*
- 8.18%
- 10Y*
- 11.08%
IBMO
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.11%
- 6M
- 1.03%
- YTD
- 1.12%
- 1Y
- 2.45%
- 3Y*
- 2.88%
- 5Y*
- 0.67%
- 10Y*
- —
PY vs. IBMO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PY Principal Value ETF | 6.52% | 7.74% | 16.79% | 9.11% | -5.10% | 34.83% | 2.71% | 10.68% |
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF | 1.12% | 3.11% | 1.97% | 2.90% | -5.36% | -0.16% | 5.48% | 4.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between PY and IBMO is -0.05, 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 | -0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2019 | -0.00 |
The correlation between PY and IBMO shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.08 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
PY vs. IBMO — Risk / Return Rank
PY
IBMO
PY vs. IBMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Principal Value ETF (PY) 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.
| PY | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.43 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.81 | 6.49 | -4.68 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.00 | 19.18 | -13.19 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PY vs. IBMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PY drawdown since its inception was -45.44%, which is greater than IBMO's maximum drawdown of -14.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PY and IBMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PY | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.44% | -14.77% | -30.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.20% | -0.38% | -5.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.84% | -1.76% | -16.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.84% | -8.86% | -8.98% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.44% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.02% | -0.02% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.01% | -2.29% | -2.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.87% | 0.13% | +1.74% |
Volatility
PY vs. IBMO - Volatility Comparison
Principal Value ETF (PY) has a higher volatility of 2.87% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO) at 0.32%. This indicates that PY'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
| PY | IBMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.87% | 0.32% | +2.55% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.41% | 0.73% | +6.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.49% | 1.13% | +9.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.68% | 2.14% | +13.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.07% | 4.49% | +15.58% |
PY vs. IBMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
PY has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IBMO's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
PY vs. IBMO - Dividend Comparison
PY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, less than IBMO's 2.40% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMO iShares iBonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF | 2.40% | 2.37% | 2.15% | 1.65% | 0.89% | 0.62% | 1.03% | 1.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PY Principal Value ETF | 1.95% | 2.14% | 2.22% | 2.68% | 3.02% | 2.83% | 2.95% | 2.25% | 2.34% | 1.68% | 1.85% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PY and IBMO have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PY has higher volatility (2.87%) compared to IBMO (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PY dropped -45.44% vs IBMO's -14.77%.
On 5-year performance, PY leads with 8.18% vs 0.67% for IBMO. On fees, PY is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, IBMO has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, PY has performed better with a 8.18% return vs 0.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PY is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IBMO.
IBMO has the higher dividend yield at 2.40%, compared with 1.95% for PY.
PY is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while IBMO is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Principal and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for PY and 0.18% for IBMO.
IBMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 1.07), 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 PY 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