FALN vs. FUMB

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) and FUMB (First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FALN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index, while FUMB is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by First Trust. FALN is passively managed, while FUMB is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FALN returned 3.89%/yr vs 1.96%/yr for FUMB. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FALN charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for FUMB.

Performance

FALN vs. FUMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) and First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF (FUMB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FALN achieves a 1.78% return, which is significantly higher than FUMB's 1.10% return.

FALN

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.57%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 6M: 1.70%
• 1Y: 9.07%
• 3Y*: 9.26%
• 5Y*: 3.89%
• 10Y*: —

FUMB

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 1.10%
• 6M: 1.33%
• 1Y: 2.58%
• 3Y*: 2.99%
• 5Y*: 1.96%
• 10Y*: —

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

FALN vs. FUMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	1.78%	8.92%	7.68%	13.47%	-13.79%	5.40%	14.85%	17.42%	-4.43%
FUMB First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF	1.10%	2.78%	3.05%	2.84%	-0.03%	0.38%	1.25%	1.76%	0.30%

Correlation

The correlation between FALN and FUMB is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.07
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2018	0.11

Return for Risk

FALN vs. FUMB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FALN

FALN Risk / Return Rank: 57
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 55

FUMB

FUMB Risk / Return Rank: 96
FUMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FUMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
FUMB Omega Ratio Rank: 96
FUMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FUMB Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

FALN vs. FUMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) and First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF (FUMB). 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.

	FALN	FUMB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	3.42	-1.41
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	5.41	-2.50
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.78	-0.38
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	12.25	-9.97
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.55	46.56	-37.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FALN vs. FUMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FALN Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is lower than the FUMB Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FALN and FUMB, 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

	FALN	FUMB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.01	3.42	-1.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54	1.69	-1.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	1.01	-0.26

Drawdowns

FALN vs. FUMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FALN drawdown since its inception was -29.22%, which is greater than FUMB's maximum drawdown of -2.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FALN and FUMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FALN	FUMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.22%	-2.68%	-26.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.96%	-0.22%	-3.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.92%	-0.60%	-5.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.78%	-1.25%	-17.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	0.00%	-0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.32%	-0.19%	-3.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.95%	0.06%	+0.89%

Volatility

FALN vs. FUMB - Volatility Comparison

iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) has a higher volatility of 1.40% compared to First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF (FUMB) at 0.21%. This indicates that FALN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FUMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FALN	FUMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.40%	0.21%	+1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.63%	0.53%	+3.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.54%	0.76%	+3.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.31%	1.16%	+6.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.95%	1.77%	+7.18%

FALN vs. FUMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FALN has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than FUMB's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

FALN vs. FUMB - Dividend Comparison

FALN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.45%, more than FUMB's 2.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	6.45%	6.31%	6.24%	5.37%	5.08%	3.40%	5.14%	5.35%	5.97%	6.98%	3.55%
FUMB First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF	2.80%	2.90%	2.86%	2.24%	1.02%	0.43%	0.94%	1.74%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FALN and FUMB in my portfolio?

FALN and FUMB have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FALN or FUMB?

FALN has higher volatility (1.40%) compared to FUMB (0.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FALN dropped -29.22% vs FUMB's -2.68%.

Which ETF is better, FALN or FUMB?

On 5-year performance, FALN leads with 3.89% vs 1.96% for FUMB. On fees, FALN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FUMB has been the lower-risk option at 0.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FALN or FUMB?

Over the 5-year period, FALN has performed better with a 3.89% return vs 1.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FALN or FUMB?

FALN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FUMB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FALN or FUMB?

FALN has the higher dividend yield at 6.45%, compared with 2.80% for FUMB.

What is the main difference between FALN and FUMB?

FALN is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while FUMB is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FALN and 0.45% for FUMB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FUMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 2.01), 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.