BSMU vs. LNGX
BSMU (Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF) and LNGX (Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BSMU is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Invesco Bulletshares Municipal Bond 2030 Index, while LNGX is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Global X U.S. Natural Gas Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.31, they often move in opposite directions. BSMU charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for LNGX.
Performance
BSMU vs. LNGX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BSMU achieves a 0.84% return, which is significantly lower than LNGX's 12.32% return.
BSMU
- 1D
- 0.14%
- 1M
- 1.02%
- YTD
- 0.84%
- 6M
- 0.89%
- 1Y
- 4.81%
- 3Y*
- 2.74%
- 5Y*
- -0.58%
- 10Y*
- —
LNGX
- 1D
- -2.12%
- 1M
- -9.87%
- YTD
- 12.32%
- 6M
- 12.69%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BSMU vs. LNGX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BSMU Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF | 0.84% | 0.51% |
LNGX Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF | 12.32% | 5.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between BSMU and LNGX is -0.31, 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 29, 2025 | -0.31 |
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
BSMU vs. LNGX — Risk / Return Rank
BSMU
LNGX
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BSMU vs. LNGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMU) and Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF (LNGX). 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.
| BSMU | LNGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.34 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.91 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BSMU vs. LNGX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BSMU drawdown since its inception was -19.48%, which is greater than LNGX's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSMU and LNGX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BSMU | LNGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.48% | -17.71% | -1.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.06% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.48% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.56% | -17.35% | +12.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.16% | -5.24% | -2.92% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.70% | — | — |
Volatility
BSMU vs. LNGX - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BSMU | LNGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.70% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.56% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.15% | 24.97% | -22.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.82% | 24.97% | -20.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.82% | 24.97% | -20.15% |
BSMU vs. LNGX - Expense Ratio Comparison
BSMU has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than LNGX's 0.45% expense ratio.
Dividends
BSMU vs. LNGX - Dividend Comparison
BSMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.79%, more than LNGX's 0.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BSMU Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF | 2.79% | 2.82% | 2.92% | 2.66% | 2.16% | 1.60% | 0.28% |
LNGX Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF | 0.24% | 0.27% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BSMU and LNGX have a correlation of -0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BSMU is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BSMU is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LNGX.
BSMU has the higher dividend yield at 2.79%, compared with 0.24% for LNGX.
BSMU is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while LNGX is Energy Equities. BSMU tracks Invesco Bulletshares Municipal Bond 2030 Index, while LNGX tracks Global X U.S. Natural Gas Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for BSMU and 0.45% for LNGX.
Find the right allocation for BSMU and LNGX
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