DFCA vs. MMCA

Last updated Jun 7, 2026

DFCA (Dimensional California Municipal Bond ETF) and MMCA (IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DFCA returned 5.16% vs 6.61% for MMCA. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DFCA charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for MMCA.

Performance

DFCA vs. MMCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional California Municipal Bond ETF (DFCA) and IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFCA achieves a 1.08% return, which is significantly higher than MMCA's 0.83% return.

DFCA

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.37%
• YTD: 1.08%
• 6M: 1.39%
• 1Y: 5.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MMCA

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 0.83%
• 6M: 1.20%
• 1Y: 6.61%
• 3Y*: 4.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DFCA vs. MMCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DFCA Dimensional California Municipal Bond ETF	1.08%	2.99%	1.49%	2.59%
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	0.83%	5.74%	1.70%	3.58%

Correlation

The correlation between DFCA and MMCA is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2023	0.69

The correlation between DFCA and MMCA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

DFCA vs. MMCA — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFCA

DFCA Risk / Return Rank: 77
DFCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
DFCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
DFCA Omega Ratio Rank: 92
DFCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
DFCA Martin Ratio Rank: 55

MMCA

MMCA Risk / Return Rank: 69
MMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
MMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
MMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
MMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

DFCA vs. MMCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional California Municipal Bond ETF (DFCA) and IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA). 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.

	DFCA	MMCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.78	2.46	+0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.10	3.66	+0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.52	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	2.12	+0.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.93	6.67	+2.26
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFCA vs. MMCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.78, which is comparable to the MMCA Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFCA and MMCA, 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

	DFCA	MMCA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.78	2.46	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.13	0.05	+1.08

Drawdowns

DFCA vs. MMCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFCA drawdown since its inception was -3.28%, smaller than the maximum MMCA drawdown of -15.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFCA and MMCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFCA	MMCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.28%	-15.97%	+12.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.77%	-3.01%	+1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-1.36%	+0.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.70%	-7.04%	+6.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.55%	0.95%	-0.40%

Volatility

DFCA vs. MMCA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional California Municipal Bond ETF (DFCA) is 0.52%, while IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) has a volatility of 0.88%. This indicates that DFCA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MMCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFCA	MMCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.52%	0.88%	-0.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.30%	1.88%	-0.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.77%	2.59%	-0.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.48%	3.60%	-1.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.48%	3.60%	-1.12%

DFCA vs. MMCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFCA has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than MMCA's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFCA vs. MMCA - Dividend Comparison

DFCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.69%, less than MMCA's 3.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFCA Dimensional California Municipal Bond ETF	2.69%	2.86%	2.86%	1.24%	0.00%	0.00%
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	3.28%	3.39%	3.66%	3.57%	2.90%	0.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFCA and MMCA in my portfolio?

DFCA and MMCA have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DFCA or MMCA?

MMCA has higher volatility (0.88%) compared to DFCA (0.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFCA dropped -3.28% vs MMCA's -15.97%.

Which ETF is better, DFCA or MMCA?

On 1-year performance, MMCA leads with 6.61% vs 5.16% for DFCA. On fees, DFCA is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, DFCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFCA or MMCA?

Over the 1-year period, MMCA has performed better with a 6.61% return vs 5.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFCA or MMCA?

DFCA is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for MMCA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DFCA or MMCA?

MMCA has the higher dividend yield at 3.28%, compared with 2.69% for DFCA.

What is the main difference between DFCA and MMCA?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and IndexIQ. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for DFCA and 0.36% for MMCA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.78 vs 2.46), 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.