AAMBX vs. FMNDX
Compare and contrast key facts about Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund (AAMBX) and Fidelity Conservative Income Municipal Bond Fund Institutional Class (FMNDX).
AAMBX is managed by Thrivent. It was launched on Dec 2, 1976. FMNDX is managed by Fidelity. It was launched on Oct 15, 2013.
Performance
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAMBX Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund | -0.53% | 3.39% | 2.70% | 6.18% | -10.93% | 1.99% | 4.78% | 7.38% | 0.32% | 4.47% |
FMNDX Fidelity Conservative Income Municipal Bond Fund Institutional Class | 0.30% | 3.31% | 3.04% | 3.37% | -0.09% | 0.03% | 0.86% | 2.00% | 1.58% | 1.10% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AAMBX achieves a -0.53% return, which is significantly lower than FMNDX's 0.30% return. Over the past 10 years, AAMBX has outperformed FMNDX with an annualized return of 1.68%, while FMNDX has yielded a comparatively lower 1.55% annualized return.
AAMBX
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- -2.06%
- YTD
- -0.53%
- 6M
- 0.85%
- 1Y
- 2.59%
- 3Y*
- 2.94%
- 5Y*
- 0.44%
- 10Y*
- 1.68%
FMNDX
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -0.30%
- YTD
- 0.30%
- 6M
- 1.06%
- 1Y
- 2.67%
- 3Y*
- 3.04%
- 5Y*
- 1.98%
- 10Y*
- 1.55%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Expense Ratio Comparison
AAMBX has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than FMNDX's 0.25% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
AAMBX vs. FMNDX — Risk / Return Rank
AAMBX
FMNDX
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund (AAMBX) and Fidelity Conservative Income Municipal Bond Fund Institutional Class (FMNDX). 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.
| AAMBX | FMNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.50 | 2.85 | -2.35 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.70 | 6.52 | -5.82 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 2.73 | -1.59 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.67 | 7.66 | -6.99 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.79 | 29.05 | -27.26 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AAMBX | FMNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.50 | 2.85 | -2.35 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.09 | 1.90 | -1.80 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.38 | 1.74 | -1.35 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 1.66 | -1.21 |
Correlation
The correlation between AAMBX and FMNDX is 0.42, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Dividend Comparison
AAMBX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.54%, more than FMNDX's 2.64% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAMBX Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund | 3.54% | 4.65% | 3.93% | 2.58% | 2.97% | 2.66% | 2.80% | 3.35% | 3.45% | 3.40% | 3.41% | 3.39% |
FMNDX Fidelity Conservative Income Municipal Bond Fund Institutional Class | 2.64% | 2.95% | 2.99% | 2.60% | 0.61% | 0.23% | 0.85% | 1.58% | 1.46% | 1.00% | 0.75% | 0.38% |
Drawdowns
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AAMBX drawdown since its inception was -49.18%, which is greater than FMNDX's maximum drawdown of -1.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAMBX and FMNDX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| AAMBX | FMNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -49.18% | -1.69% | -47.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.89% | -0.40% | -5.49% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.17% | -1.09% | -15.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -16.17% | -1.69% | -14.48% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.44% | -0.30% | -2.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.22% | -0.10% | -5.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.20% | 0.10% | +2.10% |
Volatility
AAMBX vs. FMNDX - Volatility Comparison
Thrivent Municipal Bond Fund (AAMBX) has a higher volatility of 1.42% compared to Fidelity Conservative Income Municipal Bond Fund Institutional Class (FMNDX) at 0.16%. This indicates that AAMBX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMNDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| AAMBX | FMNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.42% | 0.16% | +1.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.02% | 0.62% | +1.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.12% | 1.01% | +5.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.72% | 1.05% | +3.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.40% | 0.90% | +3.50% |