CGSM vs. CMF
CGSM (Capital Group Short Duration Municipal Income ETF) and CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. CGSM is actively managed, while CMF is passively managed. Over the past year, CGSM returned 4.67% vs 6.74% for CMF. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.
Performance
CGSM vs. CMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGSM achieves a 1.37% return, which is significantly higher than CMF's 1.08% return.
CGSM
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- 1.37%
- 6M
- 1.64%
- 1Y
- 4.67%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CMF
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- 0.70%
- YTD
- 1.08%
- 6M
- 1.44%
- 1Y
- 6.74%
- 3Y*
- 3.24%
- 5Y*
- 0.69%
- 10Y*
- 1.76%
CGSM vs. CMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGSM Capital Group Short Duration Municipal Income ETF | 1.37% | 4.58% | 3.71% | 4.04% |
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 1.08% | 3.36% | 1.65% | 6.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGSM and CMF is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023 | 0.62 |
The correlation between CGSM and CMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.62 (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
CGSM vs. CMF — Risk / Return Rank
CGSM
CMF
CGSM vs. CMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Short Duration Municipal Income ETF (CGSM) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF). 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.
| CGSM | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.96 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.82 | 1.54 | +0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.98 | 2.32 | +1.66 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.02 | 7.80 | +5.22 |
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
| CGSM | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.52 | 2.41 | +1.10 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.17 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.35 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.89 | 0.39 | +2.49 |
Drawdowns
CGSM vs. CMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGSM drawdown since its inception was -1.42%, smaller than the maximum CMF drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGSM and CMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGSM | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -1.42% | -16.45% | +15.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.18% | -2.91% | +1.73% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -5.22% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -12.45% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -14.57% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.14% | -0.80% | +0.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.24% | -4.77% | +4.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.36% | 0.87% | -0.51% |
Volatility
CGSM vs. CMF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Capital Group Short Duration Municipal Income ETF (CGSM) is 0.43%, while iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) has a volatility of 0.86%. This indicates that CGSM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGSM | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.43% | 0.86% | -0.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.98% | 2.11% | -1.13% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.33% | 2.80% | -1.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.79% | 4.19% | -2.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.79% | 5.08% | -3.29% |
CGSM vs. CMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CGSM and CMF have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
CGSM vs. CMF - Dividend Comparison
CGSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, more than CMF's 2.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGSM Capital Group Short Duration Municipal Income ETF | 2.99% | 3.05% | 3.11% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 2.95% | 2.94% | 2.78% | 2.29% | 1.91% | 1.58% | 1.80% | 2.03% | 2.17% | 2.09% | 2.21% | 2.55% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGSM and CMF have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CMF has higher volatility (0.86%) compared to CGSM (0.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGSM dropped -1.42% vs CMF's -16.45%.
On 1-year performance, CMF leads with 6.74% vs 4.67% for CGSM. Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. On volatility, CGSM has been the lower-risk option at 0.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CMF has performed better with a 6.74% return vs 4.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CGSM and CMF have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.
CGSM has the higher dividend yield at 2.99%, compared with 2.95% for CMF.
They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares.
CGSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.52 vs 2.41), 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 CGSM and CMF
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