CIL vs. GUMI

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) and GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CIL is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while GUMI is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs. CIL is passively managed, while GUMI is actively managed. Over the past year, CIL returned 16.95% vs 3.15% for GUMI. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIL charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for GUMI.

Performance

CIL vs. GUMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) 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, CIL achieves a 5.44% return, which is significantly higher than GUMI's 1.26% return.

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 16.95%
• 3Y*: 15.96%
• 5Y*: 7.55%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

GUMI

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 1.26%
• 6M: 1.42%
• 1Y: 3.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CIL vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	5.44%	32.99%	-0.84%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.26%	3.39%	1.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CIL and GUMI is -0.04, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2024	0.04

Return for Risk

CIL vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 83
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 95
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

CIL vs. GUMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) 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.

	CIL	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.32	2.96	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.41	4.83	-1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.65	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.85	8.85	-4.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.75	38.29	-21.54

CIL vs. GUMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIL Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is comparable to the GUMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIL 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.

Drawdowns

CIL vs. GUMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIL drawdown since its inception was -36.27%, which is greater than GUMI's maximum drawdown of -0.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIL and GUMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIL	GUMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.27%	-0.48%	-35.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.60%	-0.36%	-4.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.96%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.89%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.27%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.58%	-0.02%	-0.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.53%	-0.05%	-6.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.07%	0.08%	+0.99%

Volatility

CIL vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) is 0.00%, while Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) has a volatility of 0.20%. This indicates that CIL 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.

Volatility by Period

	CIL	GUMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	0.20%	-0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.38%	0.51%	+2.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.66%	1.07%	+6.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.47%	0.98%	+15.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.08%	0.98%	+16.10%

CIL vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than GUMI's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIL vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison

CIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, less than GUMI's 2.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	1.20%	2.70%	3.46%	2.91%	2.41%	3.04%	1.73%	2.69%	2.85%	2.17%	2.34%	0.43%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.77%	2.95%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIL and GUMI in my portfolio?

CIL and GUMI have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CIL or GUMI?

GUMI has higher volatility (0.20%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIL dropped -36.27% vs GUMI's -0.48%.

Which ETF is better, CIL or GUMI?

On 1-year performance, CIL leads with 16.95% vs 3.15% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, CIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CIL or GUMI?

Over the 1-year period, CIL has performed better with a 16.95% return vs 3.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIL or GUMI?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CIL.

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

GUMI has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 1.20% for CIL.

What is the main difference between CIL and GUMI?

CIL is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while GUMI is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Crestview and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CIL and 0.16% for GUMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.96 vs 2.32), 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.