EIM vs. NMS
Compare and contrast key facts about Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (EIM) and Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS).
EIM is managed by Eaton Vance. It was launched on Dec 3, 1993. NMS is managed by Nuveen. It was launched on Jun 25, 1993.
Performance
EIM vs. NMS - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
EIM vs. NMS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EIM Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund | 1.96% | -0.08% | 8.21% | 1.66% | -19.82% | 4.35% | 10.53% | 18.91% | -5.30% | 6.44% |
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund | 5.76% | 2.10% | 19.59% | 1.57% | -21.89% | 5.47% | 5.80% | 25.72% | -13.31% | -1.58% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EIM achieves a 1.96% return, which is significantly lower than NMS's 5.76% return. Over the past 10 years, EIM has underperformed NMS with an annualized return of 1.86%, while NMS has yielded a comparatively higher 2.13% annualized return.
EIM
- 1D
- 2.52%
- 1M
- -2.19%
- YTD
- 1.96%
- 6M
- 1.36%
- 1Y
- 4.29%
- 3Y*
- 3.48%
- 5Y*
- -1.10%
- 10Y*
- 1.86%
NMS
- 1D
- 1.12%
- 1M
- 0.47%
- YTD
- 5.76%
- 6M
- 5.82%
- 1Y
- 9.04%
- 3Y*
- 6.52%
- 5Y*
- 1.26%
- 10Y*
- 2.13%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
EIM vs. NMS - Expense Ratio Comparison
EIM has a 0.01% expense ratio, which is lower than NMS's 0.03% 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%.
Return for Risk
EIM vs. NMS — Risk / Return Rank
EIM
NMS
EIM vs. NMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (EIM) and Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS). 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.
| EIM | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.43 | 1.01 | -0.58 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.70 | 1.44 | -0.74 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.20 | -0.10 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.67 | 1.78 | -1.11 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.41 | 3.74 | -2.34 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EIM | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.43 | 1.01 | -0.58 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.10 | 0.09 | -0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.16 | 0.15 | +0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.26 | 0.22 | +0.04 |
Correlation
The correlation between EIM and NMS is 0.23, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
EIM vs. NMS - Dividend Comparison
EIM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.24%, less than NMS's 6.83% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EIM Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund | 6.24% | 6.27% | 5.65% | 4.07% | 4.87% | 4.38% | 4.29% | 4.00% | 4.98% | 5.48% | 5.64% | 5.90% |
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund | 6.83% | 7.29% | 6.05% | 4.03% | 5.24% | 4.19% | 3.93% | 4.05% | 5.52% | 5.20% | 4.68% | 5.60% |
Drawdowns
EIM vs. NMS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EIM drawdown since its inception was -52.50%, which is greater than NMS's maximum drawdown of -38.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIM and NMS.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| EIM | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.50% | -38.76% | -13.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.76% | -5.07% | -1.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.69% | -38.76% | +7.07% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -31.69% | -38.76% | +7.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.10% | -5.09% | -6.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.36% | -10.81% | +2.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.20% | 2.41% | +0.79% |
Volatility
EIM vs. NMS - Volatility Comparison
Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (EIM) has a higher volatility of 3.61% compared to Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) at 2.88%. This indicates that EIM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| EIM | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.61% | 2.88% | +0.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.10% | 5.95% | -0.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.98% | 8.95% | +1.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.60% | 14.10% | -3.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.52% | 14.63% | -3.11% |