TBFG vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TBFG is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by The Brinsmere Funds, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. TBFG is actively managed, while IBIC is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFG returned 24.15% vs 4.49% for IBIC. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. TBFG charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

TBFG vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFG achieves a 10.44% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.34% return.

TBFG

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 10.44%
• 6M: 11.28%
• 1Y: 24.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBIC

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 2.34%
• 6M: 2.50%
• 1Y: 4.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFG vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	10.44%	14.56%	10.48%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.34%	4.96%	4.88%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFG and IBIC is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2024	-0.04

The correlation between TBFG and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TBFG vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

TBFG vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.

	TBFG	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	4.99	-2.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	9.01	-5.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	2.22	-0.76
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	17.09	-13.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.74	66.52	-52.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TBFG vs. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 4.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFG and IBIC, 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

	TBFG	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.49	4.99	-2.49
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.39	3.48	-2.09

Drawdowns

TBFG vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFG drawdown since its inception was -13.43%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFG and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFG	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-0.90%	-12.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	-0.26%	-7.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-0.16%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.62%	-0.10%	-1.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.76%	0.07%	+1.69%

Volatility

TBFG vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) has a higher volatility of 2.91% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.32%. This indicates that TBFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFG	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.91%	0.32%	+2.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.00%	0.67%	+7.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.73%	0.90%	+8.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.94%	1.58%	+9.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.94%	1.58%	+9.36%

TBFG vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFG has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFG vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

TBFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, less than IBIC's 3.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.59%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.35%	2.65%	2.43%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFG and IBIC in my portfolio?

TBFG and IBIC have a correlation of -0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TBFG or IBIC?

TBFG has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to IBIC (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFG dropped -13.43% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, TBFG or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, TBFG leads with 24.15% vs 4.49% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFG or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, TBFG has performed better with a 24.15% return vs 4.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFG or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for TBFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TBFG or IBIC?

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 2.35% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between TBFG and IBIC?

TBFG is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: The Brinsmere Funds and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for TBFG and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.99 vs 2.49), 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.