BSMT vs. GUMI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BSMT (Invesco BulletShares 2029 Municipal Bond ETF) and GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. BSMT is passively managed, while GUMI is actively managed. Over the past year, BSMT returned 5.15% vs 3.17% for GUMI. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BSMT charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for GUMI.

Performance

BSMT vs. GUMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco BulletShares 2029 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMT) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BSMT achieves a 0.98% return, which is significantly lower than GUMI's 1.12% return.

BSMT

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: 0.43%
• YTD: 0.98%
• 6M: 1.43%
• 1Y: 5.15%
• 3Y*: 3.12%
• 5Y*: -0.12%
• 10Y*: —

GUMI

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 1.12%
• 6M: 1.35%
• 1Y: 3.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BSMT vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BSMT Invesco BulletShares 2029 Municipal Bond ETF	0.98%	3.79%	0.73%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.12%	3.39%	1.52%

Correlation

The correlation between BSMT and GUMI is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.30

The correlation between BSMT and GUMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BSMT vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

BSMT

BSMT Risk / Return Rank: 80
BSMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
BSMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
BSMT Omega Ratio Rank: 93
BSMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
BSMT Martin Ratio Rank: 60

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 93
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

BSMT vs. GUMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2029 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMT) 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.

	BSMT	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	2.91	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.54	4.68	-0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.63	1.64	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.24	8.90	-5.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.53	37.70	-27.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BSMT vs. GUMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BSMT Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is comparable to the GUMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BSMT and GUMI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BSMT	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.80	2.91	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	3.32	-3.17

Drawdowns

BSMT vs. GUMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BSMT drawdown since its inception was -16.20%, which is greater than GUMI's maximum drawdown of -0.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSMT and GUMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	BSMT	GUMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.20%	-0.48%	-15.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.60%	-0.36%	-1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.79%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.05%	0.00%	-2.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.64%	-0.05%	-5.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.49%	0.08%	+0.41%

Volatility

BSMT vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison

Invesco BulletShares 2029 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMT) has a higher volatility of 0.62% compared to Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) at 0.25%. This indicates that BSMT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GUMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BSMT	GUMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.62%	0.25%	+0.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.22%	0.55%	+0.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.85%	1.10%	+0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.25%	0.99%	+3.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.42%	0.99%	+5.43%

BSMT vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

BSMT 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

BSMT vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison

BSMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.74%, less than GUMI's 2.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BSMT Invesco BulletShares 2029 Municipal Bond ETF	2.74%	2.78%	2.80%	2.62%	1.65%	1.31%	1.82%	0.48%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.77%	2.95%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BSMT and GUMI in my portfolio?

BSMT and GUMI have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BSMT or GUMI?

BSMT has higher volatility (0.62%) compared to GUMI (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSMT dropped -16.20% vs GUMI's -0.48%.

Which ETF is better, BSMT or GUMI?

On 1-year performance, BSMT leads with 5.15% vs 3.17% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, GUMI has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BSMT or GUMI?

Over the 1-year period, BSMT has performed better with a 5.15% return vs 3.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BSMT or GUMI?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for BSMT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BSMT or GUMI?

GUMI has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 2.74% for BSMT.

What is the main difference between BSMT and GUMI?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for BSMT and 0.16% for GUMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.80), 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.