CMF vs. ZMUN
CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) and ZMUN (F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - CMF tracks the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index while ZMUN tracks the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. Both are passively managed. Their 0.20 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CMF charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZMUN.
Performance
CMF vs. ZMUN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMF achieves a -0.17% return, which is significantly lower than ZMUN's 2.09% 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%
ZMUN
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- 6M
- 1.82%
- YTD
- 2.09%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $29.81M | $26.50M | $27.09M | |
| $247.22K | $279.15K | $385.45K |
CMF vs. ZMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | -0.17% | 1.91% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 2.09% | 0.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMF and ZMUN is 0.20, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2025 | 0.20 |
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. ZMUN — Risk / Return Rank
CMF
ZMUN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CMF vs. ZMUN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) and F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF (ZMUN). 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 | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.73 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.29 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMF vs. ZMUN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMF drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, which is greater than ZMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMF and ZMUN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMF | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.45% | -0.13% | -16.32% |
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 | -12.40% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.57% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.03% | 0.00% | -2.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.74% | -0.02% | -4.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.95% | — | — |
Volatility
CMF vs. ZMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMF | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.86% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.28% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.86% | 0.54% | +2.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.21% | 0.54% | +3.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.08% | 0.54% | +4.54% |
CMF vs. ZMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMF has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than ZMUN's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMF vs. ZMUN - Dividend Comparison
CMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, more than ZMUN's 2.92% 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% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 2.92% | 0.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMF and ZMUN have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CMF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CMF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for ZMUN.
ZMUN has the higher dividend yield at 2.92%, compared with 2.74% for CMF.
CMF tracks S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, while ZMUN tracks Bloomberg Municipal Bond Currently Callable Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for CMF and 0.30% for ZMUN.
Find the right allocation for CMF and ZMUN
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