BSMQ vs. GUMI
BSMQ (Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF) and GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. BSMQ is passively managed, while GUMI is actively managed. Over the past year, BSMQ returned 2.94% vs 2.80% for GUMI. Their 0.23 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BSMQ charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for GUMI.
Performance
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BSMQ achieves a 1.21% return, which is significantly lower than GUMI's 1.50% return.
BSMQ
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- 6M
- 0.98%
- YTD
- 1.21%
- 1Y
- 2.94%
- 3Y*
- 2.88%
- 5Y*
- 0.26%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 1.22%
GUMI
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- 0.07%
- 6M
- 1.19%
- YTD
- 1.50%
- 1Y
- 2.80%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.21%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $752.85K | $1.46M | $1.59M | |
| $740.36K | $974.05K | $710.33K |
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
BSMQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF | 1.21% | 3.12% | 1.21% |
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF | 1.50% | 3.39% | 1.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between BSMQ and GUMI is 0.10, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2024 | 0.23 |
The correlation between BSMQ and GUMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
BSMQ vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank
BSMQ
GUMI
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMQ) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). 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.
| BSMQ | GUMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.70 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.48 | 1.62 | -0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 10.33 | 8.25 | +2.08 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 27.47 | 36.03 | -8.56 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BSMQ drawdown since its inception was -13.18%, which is greater than GUMI's maximum drawdown of -0.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSMQ and GUMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BSMQ | GUMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.18% | -0.48% | -12.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.30% | -0.36% | +0.06% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.05% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.50% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.11% | +0.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.39% | -0.05% | -3.34% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.11% | 0.08% | +0.03% |
Volatility
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMQ) is 0.26%, while Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) has a volatility of 0.34%. This indicates that BSMQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GUMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BSMQ | GUMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.26% | 0.34% | -0.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.86% | 0.53% | +0.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.30% | 1.04% | +0.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.65% | 0.98% | +1.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.74% | 0.98% | +3.76% |
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
BSMQ has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than GUMI's 0.16% 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
BSMQ vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison
BSMQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.75%, which matches GUMI's 2.73% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BSMQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF | 2.75% | 2.74% | 2.75% | 2.47% | 1.60% | 1.14% | 1.57% | 0.44% |
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF | 2.49% | 2.95% | 1.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BSMQ and GUMI have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GUMI has higher volatility (0.34%) compared to BSMQ (0.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSMQ dropped -13.18% vs GUMI's -0.48%.
On 1-year performance, BSMQ leads with 2.94% vs 2.80% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BSMQ has performed better with a 2.94% return vs 2.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for BSMQ.
BSMQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.75%, compared with 2.49% for GUMI.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for BSMQ and 0.16% for GUMI.
GUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.36), 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.
Find the right allocation for BSMQ and GUMI
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