Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IAU vs MUB: how they differ
IAU is a commodity fund and MUB a bond index fund, and over the year IAU returned more, +19.2% against +0.1%.
iShares Gold Trust and iShares National Muni Bond ETF.
| IAU iShares Gold Trust | MUB iShares National Muni Bond ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Gold | National Muni Bond |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.2% | +0.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.7 pts | −17.4 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | not filed | 6603 |
IAU in plain words
IAU is a commodity fund tracking the Gold. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. It sat 19.6% below its high of Jan 29, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
MUB in plain words
MUB is a bond fund tracking the National Muni Bond. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +0.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. It sat 3.6% below its high of Jul 6, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IAU or MUB?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IAU returned +19.2% and MUB returned +0.1%, so IAU returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IAU or MUB?
- IAU charges 0.25% a year and MUB charges 0.05%, so MUB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IAU against MUB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IAU-MUB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources