BSMS vs. ZMUN
BSMS (Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF) and ZMUN (F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - BSMS tracks the Invesco BulletShares Municipal Bond 2028 Index while ZMUN tracks the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BSMS charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZMUN.
Performance
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BSMS achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly lower than ZMUN's 1.57% return.
BSMS
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.18%
- YTD
- 0.82%
- 6M
- 1.20%
- 1Y
- 4.26%
- 3Y*
- 3.05%
- 5Y*
- 0.07%
- 10Y*
- —
ZMUN
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 1.57%
- 6M
- 1.86%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BSMS Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF | 0.82% | 1.05% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 1.57% | 0.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between BSMS and ZMUN is 0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2025 | 0.08 |
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
BSMS vs. ZMUN — Risk / Return Rank
BSMS
ZMUN
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMS) and F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF (ZMUN). 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.
| BSMS | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.63 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.08 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.81 | — | — |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BSMS | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.86 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.02 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.19 | 6.46 | -6.26 |
Drawdowns
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BSMS drawdown since its inception was -14.95%, which is greater than ZMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSMS and ZMUN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BSMS | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.95% | -0.09% | -14.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.05% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.25% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.95% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.09% | -0.02% | -1.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.97% | -0.01% | -4.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.36% | — | — |
Volatility
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BSMS | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.50% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.91% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.50% | 0.54% | +0.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.60% | 0.54% | +3.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.21% | 0.54% | +5.67% |
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison
BSMS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMUN's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
BSMS vs. ZMUN - Dividend Comparison
BSMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, more than ZMUN's 2.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BSMS Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF | 2.77% | 2.79% | 2.81% | 2.58% | 1.56% | 1.49% | 1.61% | 0.46% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 2.28% | 0.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BSMS and ZMUN have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BSMS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BSMS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for ZMUN.
BSMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 2.28% for ZMUN.
BSMS tracks Invesco BulletShares Municipal Bond 2028 Index, while ZMUN tracks Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and F/m Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for BSMS and 0.30% for ZMUN.
Find the right allocation for BSMS and ZMUN
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