CMF vs. FCAL
CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) and FCAL (First Trust California Municipal High Income ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. CMF is passively managed, while FCAL is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMF returned 0.31%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for FCAL. Their 0.54 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CMF charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FCAL.
Performance
CMF vs. FCAL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMF achieves a -0.17% return, which is significantly lower than FCAL's 0.60% return.
CMF
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- -1.82%
- 6M
- -0.93%
- YTD
- -0.17%
- 1Y
- 4.37%
- 3Y*
- 2.68%
- 5Y*
- 0.31%
- 10Y*
- 1.55%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.21%
FCAL
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -1.95%
- 6M
- -0.18%
- YTD
- 0.60%
- 1Y
- 5.33%
- 3Y*
- 3.06%
- 5Y*
- 0.23%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 2.42%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $29.81M | $26.50M | $27.09M | |
| $639.26K | $623.11K | $916.60K |
CMF vs. FCAL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | -0.17% | 3.36% | 1.65% | 5.71% | -8.27% | 0.78% | 4.50% | 6.94% | 0.99% | 1.08% |
FCAL First Trust California Municipal High Income ETF | 0.60% | 3.19% | 1.90% | 6.08% | -9.50% | 3.26% | 3.51% | 9.32% | 0.31% | 4.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMF and FCAL is 0.71, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.71 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.60 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2017 | 0.54 |
The correlation between CMF and FCAL shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (all time) to 0.71 (1 year), 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
CMF vs. FCAL — Risk / Return Rank
CMF
FCAL
CMF vs. FCAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) and First Trust California Municipal High Income ETF (FCAL). 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 | FCAL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.45 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.73 | 2.24 | -0.50 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.29 | 7.69 | -2.40 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMF vs. FCAL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMF drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, which is greater than FCAL's maximum drawdown of -14.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMF and FCAL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMF | FCAL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.45% | -14.81% | -1.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.91% | -2.57% | -0.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.22% | -5.46% | +0.24% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -12.40% | -14.28% | +1.88% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.57% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.03% | -1.95% | -0.08% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.74% | -3.30% | -1.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.95% | 0.75% | +0.20% |
Volatility
CMF vs. FCAL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) is 0.86%, while First Trust California Municipal High Income ETF (FCAL) has a volatility of 1.03%. This indicates that CMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMF | FCAL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.86% | 1.03% | -0.17% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.28% | 2.32% | -0.04% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.86% | 2.82% | +0.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.21% | 4.25% | -0.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.08% | 5.22% | -0.14% |
CMF vs. FCAL - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMF has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than FCAL's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMF vs. FCAL - Dividend Comparison
CMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, less than FCAL's 3.43% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 2.74% | 2.94% | 2.78% | 2.29% | 1.91% | 1.58% | 1.80% | 2.03% | 2.17% | 2.09% | 2.21% | 2.55% |
FCAL First Trust California Municipal High Income ETF | 3.43% | 3.22% | 2.99% | 2.74% | 2.38% | 2.03% | 2.11% | 2.68% | 2.99% | 1.30% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMF and FCAL have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FCAL has higher volatility (1.03%) compared to CMF (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMF dropped -16.45% vs FCAL's -14.81%.
On 5-year performance, CMF leads with 0.31% vs 0.23% for FCAL. On fees, CMF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, CMF has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CMF has performed better with a 0.31% return vs 0.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CMF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FCAL.
FCAL has the higher dividend yield at 3.43%, compared with 2.74% for CMF.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for CMF and 0.50% for FCAL.
FCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.77), 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 CMF and FCAL
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