DCIBX vs. DFSMX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DCIBX (DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio) and DFSMX (DFA Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio) are both Municipal Bonds funds from Dimensional. Over the past 10 years, DCIBX returned 1.36%/yr vs 1.26%/yr for DFSMX. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.20% expense ratio.

Performance

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DCIBX) and DFA Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DFSMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with DCIBX having a 0.93% return and DFSMX slightly higher at 0.95%. Over the past 10 years, DCIBX has outperformed DFSMX with an annualized return of 1.36%, while DFSMX has yielded a comparatively lower 1.26% annualized return.

DCIBX

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.32%
• YTD: 0.93%
• 6M: 1.25%
• 1Y: 5.05%
• 3Y*: 3.07%
• 5Y*: 1.09%
• 10Y*: 1.36%

DFSMX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 0.95%
• 6M: 1.17%
• 1Y: 2.48%
• 3Y*: 2.71%
• 5Y*: 1.70%
• 10Y*: 1.26%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DCIBX DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio	0.93%	3.70%	1.19%	3.73%	-3.75%	-0.53%	2.78%	4.09%	1.36%	2.30%
DFSMX DFA Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio	0.95%	2.30%	2.84%	2.98%	-0.36%	-0.11%	0.83%	1.62%	1.22%	1.15%

Correlation

The correlation between DCIBX and DFSMX is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 6, 2012	0.39

The correlation between DCIBX and DFSMX shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (1 year) to 0.40 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

DCIBX vs. DFSMX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

DCIBX

DCIBX Risk / Return Rank: 76
DCIBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
DCIBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
DCIBX Omega Ratio Rank: 97
DCIBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
DCIBX Martin Ratio Rank: 41

DFSMX

DFSMX Risk / Return Rank: 99
DFSMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
DFSMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
DFSMX Omega Ratio Rank: 100
DFSMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
DFSMX Martin Ratio Rank: 100

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DCIBX) and DFA Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DFSMX). 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.

	DCIBX	DFSMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.14	4.16	-1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.91	8.56	-3.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.92	4.46	-2.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	12.85	-10.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.80	76.74	-67.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DCIBX Sharpe Ratio is 3.14, which is comparable to the DFSMX Sharpe Ratio of 4.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DCIBX and DFSMX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DCIBX	DFSMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.14	4.16	-1.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	2.18	-1.68
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58	1.64	-1.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	1.79	-1.03

Drawdowns

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DCIBX drawdown since its inception was -7.97%, which is greater than DFSMX's maximum drawdown of -2.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DCIBX and DFSMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	DCIBX	DFSMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.97%	-2.66%	-5.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.80%	-0.20%	-1.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.97%	-0.49%	-2.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-7.22%	-1.66%	-5.56%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-7.97%	-1.69%	-6.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.73%	0.00%	-0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.29%	-0.23%	-1.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	0.03%	+0.55%

Volatility

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Volatility Comparison

DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DCIBX) has a higher volatility of 0.51% compared to DFA Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DFSMX) at 0.14%. This indicates that DCIBX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFSMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DCIBX	DFSMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.51%	0.14%	+0.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.24%	0.37%	+0.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.63%	0.61%	+1.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.19%	0.79%	+1.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.36%	0.77%	+1.59%

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both DCIBX and DFSMX have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

DCIBX vs. DFSMX - Dividend Comparison

DCIBX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, more than DFSMX's 2.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DCIBX DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio	2.58%	2.44%	2.06%	1.69%	1.15%	1.05%	1.34%	1.46%	1.44%	1.32%	1.44%	1.61%
DFSMX DFA Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio	2.36%	2.08%	2.80%	1.94%	0.63%	0.19%	0.83%	1.22%	1.11%	0.95%	0.94%	0.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DCIBX and DFSMX in my portfolio?

DCIBX and DFSMX 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.

Which is riskier, DCIBX or DFSMX?

DCIBX has higher volatility (0.51%) compared to DFSMX (0.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DCIBX dropped -7.97% vs DFSMX's -2.66%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.16 vs 3.14), 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.