AMUN vs. ILS
AMUN (abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF) and ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUN is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by abrdn, while ILS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Brookmont. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. AMUN charges 0.25%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for ILS.
Performance
AMUN vs. ILS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AMUN achieves a 1.11% return, which is significantly lower than ILS's 1.81% return.
AMUN
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.32%
- YTD
- 1.11%
- 6M
- 1.36%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILS
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- 0.45%
- YTD
- 1.81%
- 6M
- 2.12%
- 1Y
- 7.67%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AMUN vs. ILS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.11% | 0.14% |
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 1.81% | 0.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between AMUN and ILS is -0.11, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2025 | -0.11 |
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
AMUN vs. ILS — Risk / Return Rank
AMUN
ILS
AMUN vs. ILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF (AMUN) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AMUN | ILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.05 | 1.90 | +0.15 |
Drawdowns
AMUN vs. ILS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AMUN drawdown since its inception was -0.61%, smaller than the maximum ILS drawdown of -1.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUN and ILS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AMUN | ILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.61% | -1.56% | +0.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -0.55% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.02% | 0.00% | -0.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.09% | -0.25% | +0.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.17% | — |
Volatility
AMUN vs. ILS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AMUN | ILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.88% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 1.69% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.01% | 2.77% | -1.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.01% | 3.38% | -2.37% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.01% | 3.38% | -2.37% |
AMUN vs. ILS - Expense Ratio Comparison
AMUN has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than ILS's 1.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
AMUN vs. ILS - Dividend Comparison
AMUN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.89%, less than ILS's 8.09% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.89% | 0.66% |
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 8.09% | 6.06% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AMUN and ILS have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, AMUN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
AMUN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.
ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.09%, compared with 1.89% for AMUN.
AMUN is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while ILS is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and Brookmont. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AMUN and 1.58% for ILS.
Find the right allocation for AMUN and ILS
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