AMUN vs. RMCA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

AMUN (abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF) and RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMUN charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for RMCA.

Performance

AMUN vs. RMCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF (AMUN) and Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMUN achieves a 1.21% return, which is significantly lower than RMCA's 2.87% return.

AMUN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.21%
• 6M: 1.32%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMCA

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 3.16%
• 1Y: 7.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AMUN vs. RMCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF	1.21%	0.14%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.87%	-0.17%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUN and RMCA is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2025	0.25

Return for Risk

AMUN vs. RMCA — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMUN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 70
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

AMUN vs. RMCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF (AMUN) and Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AMUN	RMCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.10	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.18	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.45	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.23	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	10.74	—

Drawdowns

AMUN vs. RMCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUN drawdown since its inception was -0.61%, smaller than the maximum RMCA drawdown of -5.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUN and RMCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUN	RMCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.61%	-5.95%	+5.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-2.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.08%	-1.59%	+1.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.70%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	AMUN	RMCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.86%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	2.47%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98%	3.62%	-2.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.98%	5.33%	-4.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.98%	5.33%	-4.35%

AMUN vs. RMCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUN has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than RMCA's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUN vs. RMCA - Dividend Comparison

AMUN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, less than RMCA's 4.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF	1.88%	0.66%	0.00%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.33%	4.51%	1.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUN and RMCA in my portfolio?

AMUN and RMCA have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AMUN or RMCA?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUN or RMCA?

AMUN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for RMCA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMUN or RMCA?

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.33%, compared with 1.88% for AMUN.

What is the main difference between AMUN and RMCA?

They also come from different issuers: abrdn and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AMUN and 0.55% for RMCA.