EIM vs. NMS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EIM (Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund) and NMS (Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Over the past 10 years, EIM returned 1.44%/yr vs 1.67%/yr for NMS. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EIM charges 0.01%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for NMS.

Performance

EIM vs. NMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (EIM) and Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EIM achieves a 3.77% return, which is significantly lower than NMS's 5.79% return. Over the past 10 years, EIM has underperformed NMS with an annualized return of 1.44%, while NMS has yielded a comparatively higher 1.67% annualized return.

EIM

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 1.35%
• YTD: 3.77%
• 6M: 4.73%
• 1Y: 9.64%
• 3Y*: 5.26%
• 5Y*: -1.28%
• 10Y*: 1.44%

NMS

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: -0.73%
• YTD: 5.79%
• 6M: 4.90%
• 1Y: 13.52%
• 3Y*: 9.13%
• 5Y*: -0.77%
• 10Y*: 1.67%

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

EIM vs. NMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EIM Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund	3.77%	-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	5.79%	2.10%	19.59%	1.57%	-21.89%	5.47%	5.80%	25.72%	-13.31%	-1.58%

Correlation

The correlation between EIM and NMS is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2014	0.24

The correlation between EIM and NMS shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (all time) to 0.35 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EIM vs. NMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EIM

EIM Risk / Return Rank: 20
EIM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
EIM Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
EIM Omega Ratio Rank: 20
EIM Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
EIM Martin Ratio Rank: 15

NMS

NMS Risk / Return Rank: 55
NMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
NMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
NMS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
NMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
NMS Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

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.

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.

	EIM	NMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	1.61	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	2.34	-0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.31	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.83	4.78	-2.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.76	12.93	-9.17

EIM vs. NMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIM Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the NMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIM and NMS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	EIM	NMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.50%	-38.76%	-13.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-2.84%	-2.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.41%	-17.28%	+3.87%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.53%	-5.06%	-4.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.37%	-10.68%	+2.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.57%	1.05%	+1.52%

Volatility

EIM vs. NMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (EIM) is 2.38%, while Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) has a volatility of 3.02%. This indicates that EIM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EIM	NMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.38%	3.02%	-0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.36%	5.88%	+0.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.25%	8.46%	+0.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.74%	13.46%	-2.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.57%	14.53%	-2.96%

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%.

Dividends

EIM vs. NMS - Dividend Comparison

EIM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.23%, less than NMS's 6.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EIM Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund	6.23%	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	6.74%	7.29%	6.05%	4.03%	5.24%	4.19%	3.93%	4.05%	5.52%	5.20%	4.68%	5.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EIM and NMS in my portfolio?

EIM and NMS have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EIM or NMS?

NMS has higher volatility (3.02%) compared to EIM (2.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EIM dropped -52.50% vs NMS's -38.76%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs 1.05), 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.