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. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMF charges 0.25%/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 1.28% return, which is significantly lower than ZMUN's 1.77% return.
CMF
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 1.39%
- YTD
- 1.28%
- 6M
- 1.51%
- 1Y
- 6.61%
- 3Y*
- 3.14%
- 5Y*
- 0.75%
- 10Y*
- 1.66%
ZMUN
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 1.77%
- 6M
- 1.86%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CMF vs. ZMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 1.28% | 1.91% |
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF | 1.77% | 0.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMF and ZMUN is 0.21, 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 Sep 30, 2025 | 0.21 |
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 | 1.54 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.28 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.50 | — | — |
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 -0.10%. 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% | -0.10% | -16.35% |
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 | -0.61% | -0.03% | -0.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.76% | -0.01% | -4.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.88% | — | — |
Volatility
CMF vs. ZMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMF | ZMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.71% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.17% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.77% | 0.54% | +2.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.19% | 0.54% | +3.65% |
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 0.25% 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 2.94%, more than ZMUN's 2.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 2.94% | 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 | 2.28% | 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 0.21, 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 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CMF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for ZMUN.
CMF has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 2.28% for ZMUN.
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 Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.25% 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