SMMU vs. IBMN
SMMU (PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF) and IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. SMMU is actively managed, while IBMN is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SMMU returned 1.90%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBMN. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SMMU charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMN.
Performance
SMMU vs. IBMN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
SMMU
- 1D
- 0.07%
- 1M
- 0.31%
- YTD
- 1.10%
- 6M
- 1.36%
- 1Y
- 3.92%
- 3Y*
- 3.67%
- 5Y*
- 1.90%
- 10Y*
- 1.82%
IBMN
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 1.20%
- 3Y*
- 2.44%
- 5Y*
- 0.47%
- 10Y*
- —
SMMU vs. IBMN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SMMU PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF | 1.10% | 4.06% | 2.68% | 4.39% | -2.45% | 0.17% | 2.87% | 3.47% | 0.77% |
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 0.00% | 2.49% | 2.33% | 2.42% | -4.43% | -0.41% | 4.83% | 6.87% | 2.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between SMMU and IBMN is 0.08, 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 | 0.08 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2018 | 0.35 |
Over the past year, the correlation between SMMU and IBMN has dropped to 0.08 - well below their long-term average of 0.35, 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
SMMU vs. IBMN — Risk / Return Rank
SMMU
IBMN
SMMU vs. IBMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF (SMMU) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN). 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.
| SMMU | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.90 | 1.66 | +0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.10 | 6.02 | -0.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.24 | 24.21 | -5.97 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SMMU | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.84 | 2.12 | +1.72 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.14 | 0.28 | +0.86 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.67 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 0.58 | +0.02 |
Drawdowns
SMMU vs. IBMN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SMMU drawdown since its inception was -5.09%, smaller than the maximum IBMN drawdown of -12.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMMU and IBMN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SMMU | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.09% | -12.40% | +7.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.77% | -0.25% | -0.52% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -1.95% | -1.10% | -0.85% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -4.76% | -7.36% | +2.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -5.09% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.03% | -0.05% | +0.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.55% | -1.81% | +1.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.22% | 0.10% | +0.12% |
Volatility
SMMU vs. IBMN - Volatility Comparison
PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF (SMMU) has a higher volatility of 0.31% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) at 0.00%. This indicates that SMMU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBMN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SMMU | IBMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.31% | 0.00% | +0.31% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.79% | 0.50% | +0.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.02% | 0.71% | +0.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.67% | 1.80% | -0.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 2.73% | 3.89% | -1.16% |
SMMU vs. IBMN - Expense Ratio Comparison
SMMU has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMN's 0.18% expense ratio.
Dividends
SMMU vs. IBMN - Dividend Comparison
SMMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, more than IBMN's 1.14% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF | 1.14% | 2.03% | 2.03% | 1.72% | 0.97% | 0.70% | 1.11% | 1.65% | 0.23% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SMMU PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF | 2.84% | 2.80% | 3.03% | 2.79% | 1.37% | 0.60% | 1.19% | 1.82% | 1.57% | 1.41% | 1.03% | 0.89% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SMMU and IBMN have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SMMU has higher volatility (0.31%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMMU dropped -5.09% vs IBMN's -12.40%.
On 5-year performance, SMMU leads with 1.90% vs 0.47% for IBMN. On fees, IBMN is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IBMN has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, SMMU has performed better with a 1.90% return vs 0.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBMN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for SMMU.
SMMU has the higher dividend yield at 2.84%, compared with 1.14% for IBMN.
They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for SMMU and 0.18% for IBMN.
SMMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs 2.12), 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 SMMU and IBMN
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