DFCMX vs. DCIBX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DFCMX (DFA California Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio) and DCIBX (DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio) are both Municipal Bonds funds from Dimensional. Over the past 10 years, DFCMX returned 1.19%/yr vs 1.36%/yr for DCIBX. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DFCMX charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for DCIBX.

Performance

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFCMX achieves a 0.83% return, which is significantly lower than DCIBX's 0.93% return. Over the past 10 years, DFCMX has underperformed DCIBX with an annualized return of 1.19%, while DCIBX has yielded a comparatively higher 1.36% annualized return.

DFCMX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 0.83%
• 6M: 1.04%
• 1Y: 2.60%
• 3Y*: 2.61%
• 5Y*: 1.56%
• 10Y*: 1.19%

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%

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

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DFCMX DFA California Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio	0.83%	2.55%	2.84%	2.53%	-0.76%	-0.13%	0.67%	1.84%	1.24%	1.07%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between DFCMX and DCIBX is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 6, 2012	0.44

The correlation between DFCMX and DCIBX shifts across timeframes, from 0.26 (1 year) to 0.46 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

DFCMX vs. DCIBX — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFCMX

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

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

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.

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	DFCMX	DCIBX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.46	3.14	+1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	10.44	4.91	+5.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	4.85	1.92	+2.94
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	12.81	2.83	+9.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	43.94	8.80	+35.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFCMX Sharpe Ratio is 4.46, which is higher than the DCIBX Sharpe Ratio of 3.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFCMX and DCIBX, 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

	DFCMX	DCIBX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.46	3.14	+1.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.75	0.50	+1.26
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.36	0.58	+0.78
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	0.75	+0.55

Drawdowns

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFCMX drawdown since its inception was -2.20%, smaller than the maximum DCIBX drawdown of -7.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFCMX and DCIBX.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFCMX	DCIBX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.20%	-7.97%	+5.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.20%	-1.80%	+1.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.68%	-2.97%	+2.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-2.20%	-7.22%	+5.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-2.20%	-7.97%	+5.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.73%	+0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.26%	-1.29%	+1.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.06%	0.58%	-0.52%

Volatility

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for DFA California Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DFCMX) is 0.13%, while DFA California Intermediate-Term Municipal Bond Portfolio (DCIBX) has a volatility of 0.51%. This indicates that DFCMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DCIBX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFCMX	DCIBX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.13%	0.51%	-0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.41%	1.24%	-0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59%	1.63%	-1.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.89%	2.19%	-1.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.88%	2.36%	-1.48%

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFCMX has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than DCIBX'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

DFCMX vs. DCIBX - Dividend Comparison

DFCMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, less than DCIBX's 2.58% 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%
DFCMX DFA California Short Term Municipal Bond Portfolio	2.48%	2.23%	2.61%	1.70%	0.71%	0.36%	0.87%	1.43%	1.04%	0.87%	0.86%	0.82%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFCMX and DCIBX in my portfolio?

DFCMX and DCIBX have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DFCMX or DCIBX?

DCIBX has higher volatility (0.51%) compared to DFCMX (0.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFCMX dropped -2.20% vs DCIBX's -7.97%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFCMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.46 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.