TOAK vs. IBMN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TOAK (Twin Oak Short Horizon Absolute Return ETF) and IBMN (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TOAK is a Multistrategy fund actively managed by Twin Oak, while IBMN is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P AMT-Free Municipal Series Dec 2025 Index. TOAK is actively managed, while IBMN is passively managed. Over the past year, TOAK returned 3.70% vs 1.20% for IBMN. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. TOAK charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IBMN.

Performance

TOAK vs. IBMN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Twin Oak Short Horizon Absolute Return ETF (TOAK) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

TOAK

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.24%
• YTD: 1.32%
• 6M: 1.55%
• 1Y: 3.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBMN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 1.20%
• 3Y*: 2.44%
• 5Y*: 0.47%
• 10Y*: —

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

TOAK vs. IBMN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TOAK Twin Oak Short Horizon Absolute Return ETF	1.32%	4.28%	1.51%
IBMN iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF	0.00%	2.49%	0.84%

Correlation

The correlation between TOAK and IBMN is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	-0.08

Return for Risk

TOAK vs. IBMN — Risk / Return Rank

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

TOAK

TOAK Risk / Return Rank: 52
TOAK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
TOAK Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
TOAK Omega Ratio Rank: 96
TOAK Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
TOAK Martin Ratio Rank: 49

IBMN

IBMN Risk / Return Rank: 84
IBMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
IBMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
IBMN Omega Ratio Rank: 93
IBMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBMN Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

TOAK vs. IBMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Twin Oak Short Horizon Absolute Return ETF (TOAK) 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.

	TOAK	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.27	2.12	-0.85
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	3.51	-1.62
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.77	1.66	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.05	6.02	-3.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.11	24.21	-16.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TOAK vs. IBMN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TOAK Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is lower than the IBMN Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TOAK and IBMN, 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

	TOAK	IBMN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.27	2.12	-0.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.82	0.58	+1.23

Drawdowns

TOAK vs. IBMN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TOAK drawdown since its inception was -1.81%, smaller than the maximum IBMN drawdown of -12.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TOAK and IBMN.

Drawdown Indicators

	TOAK	IBMN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.81%	-12.40%	+10.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.81%	-0.25%	-1.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.72%	-0.05%	-1.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-1.81%	+1.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.46%	0.10%	+0.36%

Volatility

TOAK vs. IBMN - Volatility Comparison

Twin Oak Short Horizon Absolute Return ETF (TOAK) has a higher volatility of 2.72% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMN) at 0.00%. This indicates that TOAK'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.

Volatility by Period

	TOAK	IBMN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.72%	0.00%	+2.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.89%	0.50%	+2.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.92%	0.71%	+2.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.22%	1.80%	+0.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.22%	3.89%	-1.67%

TOAK vs. IBMN - Expense Ratio Comparison

TOAK has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than IBMN's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

TOAK vs. IBMN - Dividend Comparison

TOAK has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%
TOAK Twin Oak Short Horizon Absolute Return ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TOAK and IBMN in my portfolio?

TOAK and IBMN have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TOAK or IBMN?

TOAK has higher volatility (2.72%) compared to IBMN (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TOAK dropped -1.81% vs IBMN's -12.40%.

Which ETF is better, TOAK or IBMN?

On 1-year performance, TOAK leads with 3.70% vs 1.20% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, TOAK or IBMN?

Over the 1-year period, TOAK has performed better with a 3.70% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TOAK or IBMN?

IBMN is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for TOAK.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TOAK or IBMN?

IBMN has the higher dividend yield at 1.14%, compared with 0.00% for TOAK.

What is the main difference between TOAK and IBMN?

TOAK is categorized as Multistrategy, while IBMN is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Twin Oak and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for TOAK and 0.18% for IBMN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBMN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 1.27), 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.