CMF vs. AUSM
CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) and AUSM (Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. CMF is passively managed, while AUSM is actively managed. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMF charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AUSM.
Performance
CMF vs. AUSM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CMF having a 1.21% return and AUSM slightly lower at 1.18%.
CMF
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- 1.32%
- YTD
- 1.21%
- 6M
- 1.33%
- 1Y
- 6.50%
- 3Y*
- 3.12%
- 5Y*
- 0.72%
- 10Y*
- 1.65%
AUSM
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.23%
- YTD
- 1.18%
- 6M
- 1.32%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CMF vs. AUSM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 1.21% | 4.89% |
AUSM Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF | 1.18% | 1.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMF and AUSM is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2025 | 0.12 |
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
CMF vs. AUSM — Risk / Return Rank
CMF
AUSM
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CMF vs. AUSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) and Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF (AUSM). 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.
| CMF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.24 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.36 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMF vs. AUSM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMF drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, which is greater than AUSM's maximum drawdown of -0.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMF and AUSM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.45% | -0.42% | -16.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.91% | — | — |
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 | -0.68% | -0.03% | -0.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.76% | -0.09% | -4.67% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.88% | — | — |
Volatility
CMF vs. AUSM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.72% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.17% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.77% | 0.75% | +2.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.19% | 0.75% | +3.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.08% | 0.75% | +4.33% |
CMF vs. AUSM - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMF has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than AUSM's 0.18% 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
CMF vs. AUSM - Dividend Comparison
CMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.95%, more than AUSM's 2.39% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUSM Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF | 2.39% | 1.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
CMF and AUSM have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, AUSM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
AUSM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for CMF.
CMF has the higher dividend yield at 2.95%, compared with 2.39% for AUSM.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Allspring. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for CMF and 0.18% for AUSM.
Find the right allocation for CMF and AUSM
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