ESGB vs. MMCA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

ESGB (IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF) and MMCA (IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ESGB is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by IndexIQ, while MMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by IndexIQ. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESGB returned 5.53%/yr vs 4.08%/yr for MMCA. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ESGB charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for MMCA.

Performance

ESGB vs. MMCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF (ESGB) 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, ESGB achieves a 0.81% return, which is significantly higher than MMCA's 0.71% return.

ESGB

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 0.81%
• 6M: 0.97%
• 1Y: 5.72%
• 3Y*: 5.53%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MMCA

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 0.71%
• 6M: 1.17%
• 1Y: 6.39%
• 3Y*: 4.08%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ESGB vs. MMCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESGB IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF	0.81%	7.76%	4.19%	7.16%	-14.44%	0.02%
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	0.71%	5.74%	1.70%	5.77%	-12.15%	0.01%

Correlation

The correlation between ESGB and MMCA is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 22, 2021	0.60

The correlation between ESGB and MMCA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

ESGB vs. MMCA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ESGB	MMCA
Financial Services	0.2%	0.8%
Healthcare	0.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ESGB vs. MMCA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESGB

ESGB Risk / Return Rank: 43
ESGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ESGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
ESGB Omega Ratio Rank: 43
ESGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
ESGB Martin Ratio Rank: 41

MMCA

MMCA Risk / Return Rank: 65
MMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
MMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
MMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 85
MMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

ESGB vs. MMCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF (ESGB) 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.

	ESGB	MMCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	2.47	-0.93
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	3.69	-1.42
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.52	-0.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.16	2.13	+0.04
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.64	6.82	-0.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ESGB vs. MMCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESGB Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is lower than the MMCA Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESGB 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

	ESGB	MMCA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.54	2.47	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.17	0.04	+0.13

Drawdowns

ESGB vs. MMCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESGB drawdown since its inception was -18.96%, which is greater than MMCA's maximum drawdown of -15.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGB and MMCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESGB	MMCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.96%	-15.97%	-2.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.60%	-3.01%	+0.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.90%	-3.68%	-2.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.13%	-1.48%	+0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.08%	-7.05%	-0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	0.94%	-0.09%

Volatility

ESGB vs. MMCA - Volatility Comparison

IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF (ESGB) has a higher volatility of 1.32% compared to IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) at 0.90%. This indicates that ESGB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MMCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESGB	MMCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.32%	0.90%	+0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.75%	1.89%	+0.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.73%	2.60%	+1.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.04%	3.61%	+1.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.04%	3.61%	+1.43%

ESGB vs. MMCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESGB has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than MMCA's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESGB vs. MMCA - Dividend Comparison

ESGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.49%, more than MMCA's 3.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESGB IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF	5.49%	5.46%	5.40%	4.82%	3.17%	0.95%
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	3.29%	3.39%	3.66%	3.57%	2.90%	0.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESGB and MMCA in my portfolio?

ESGB and MMCA have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ESGB or MMCA?

ESGB has higher volatility (1.32%) compared to MMCA (0.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ESGB dropped -18.96% vs MMCA's -15.97%.

Which ETF is better, ESGB or MMCA?

On 3-year performance, ESGB leads with 5.53% vs 4.08% for MMCA. On fees, MMCA is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, MMCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ESGB or MMCA?

Over the 3-year period, ESGB has performed better with a 5.53% return vs 4.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESGB or MMCA?

MMCA is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ESGB.

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

ESGB has the higher dividend yield at 5.49%, compared with 3.29% for MMCA.

What is the main difference between ESGB and MMCA?

ESGB is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while MMCA is Municipal Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ESGB and 0.36% for MMCA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.54), 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.