CMF vs. GVI
CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) and GVI (iShares Intermediate Government/Credit Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMF is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, while GVI is a Short-Term Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Intermediate Government/Credit Bond. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CMF returned 1.55%/yr vs 1.68%/yr for GVI. Their 0.43 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CMF charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for GVI.
Performance
CMF vs. GVI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMF achieves a -0.17% return, which is significantly lower than GVI's -0.11% return. Over the past 10 years, CMF has underperformed GVI with an annualized return of 1.55%, while GVI has yielded a comparatively higher 1.68% annualized 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%
GVI
- 1D
- -0.16%
- 1M
- -0.49%
- 6M
- -0.22%
- YTD
- -0.11%
- 1Y
- 1.88%
- 3Y*
- 4.35%
- 5Y*
- 0.81%
- 10Y*
- 1.68%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.84%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $29.81M | $26.50M | $27.09M | |
| $11.20M | $12.27M | $14.26M |
CMF vs. GVI - 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% | 4.63% |
GVI iShares Intermediate Government/Credit Bond ETF | -0.11% | 6.66% | 2.92% | 5.15% | -8.28% | -1.90% | 6.38% | 6.54% | 0.77% | 1.83% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMF and GVI is 0.68, 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. | 0.68 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.70 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.67 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.59 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2007 | 0.43 |
Over the past year, CMF and GVI have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.43, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. GVI — Risk / Return Rank
CMF
GVI
CMF vs. GVI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) and iShares Intermediate Government/Credit Bond ETF (GVI). 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 | GVI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.91 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.18 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.73 | 1.45 | +0.28 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.29 | 3.60 | +1.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMF vs. GVI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMF drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, which is greater than GVI's maximum drawdown of -12.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMF and GVI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMF | GVI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.45% | -12.93% | -3.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.91% | -1.79% | -1.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.22% | -2.56% | -2.66% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -12.40% | -12.28% | -0.12% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.57% | -12.93% | -1.64% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.03% | -1.28% | -0.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.74% | -1.85% | -2.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.95% | 0.72% | +0.23% |
Volatility
CMF vs. GVI - Volatility Comparison
iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) has a higher volatility of 0.86% compared to iShares Intermediate Government/Credit Bond ETF (GVI) at 0.67%. This indicates that CMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GVI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMF | GVI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.86% | 0.67% | +0.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.28% | 1.96% | +0.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.86% | 2.48% | +0.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.21% | 3.98% | +0.23% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.08% | 3.53% | +1.55% |
CMF vs. GVI - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMF has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than GVI's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. GVI - Dividend Comparison
CMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, less than GVI's 3.65% 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% |
GVI iShares Intermediate Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.35% | 3.48% | 3.40% | 2.75% | 1.86% | 1.46% | 1.84% | 2.29% | 2.16% | 1.91% | 1.77% | 1.75% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMF and GVI have a correlation of 0.68, 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 GVI (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMF dropped -16.45% vs GVI's -12.93%.
On 10-year performance, GVI leads with 1.68% vs 1.55% for CMF. On fees, CMF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, GVI has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GVI has performed better with a 1.68% return vs 1.55%. 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 0.20% for GVI.
GVI has the higher dividend yield at 3.35%, compared with 2.74% for CMF.
CMF is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while GVI is Short-Term Bond. CMF tracks S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, while GVI tracks Bloomberg U.S. Intermediate Government/Credit Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for CMF and 0.20% for GVI.
CMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.05), 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 GVI
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