FMUN vs. CMF

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF (FMUN) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF).

FMUN and CMF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FMUN is an actively managed fund by Fidelity. It was launched on Jul 11, 2019. CMF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index. It was launched on Oct 4, 2007.

Performance

FMUN vs. CMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF (FMUN) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FMUN vs. CMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FMUN Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF	-0.40%	4.25%
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF	-0.57%	6.29%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMUN achieves a -0.40% return, which is significantly higher than CMF's -0.57% return.

FMUN

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: -2.71%
• YTD: -0.40%
• 6M: 1.25%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMF

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -2.42%
• YTD: -0.57%
• 6M: 1.16%
• 1Y: 4.10%
• 3Y*: 2.44%
• 5Y*: 0.58%
• 10Y*: 1.72%

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

FMUN vs. CMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMUN has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than CMF's 0.25% 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%.

CMF

iShares California Muni Bond ETF

FMUN

Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF

Return for Risk

FMUN vs. CMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CMF

CMF Risk / Return Rank: 50
CMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
CMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
CMF Omega Ratio Rank: 64
CMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
CMF Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

FMUN vs. CMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF (FMUN) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FMUN	CMF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	0.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.34	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.95	0.39	+0.56

Correlation

The correlation between FMUN and CMF is 0.75, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

FMUN vs. CMF - Dividend Comparison

FMUN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.25%, more than CMF's 2.98% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMUN Fidelity Systematic Municipal Bond Index ETF	3.25%	2.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF	2.98%	2.94%	2.78%	2.29%	1.91%	1.58%	1.80%	2.03%	2.17%	2.09%	2.21%	2.55%

Drawdowns

FMUN vs. CMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMUN drawdown since its inception was -3.21%, smaller than the maximum CMF drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMUN and CMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMUN	CMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.21%	-16.45%	+13.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.84%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-12.45%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.57%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.71%	-2.42%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.67%	-4.80%	+4.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.23%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FMUN	CMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.56%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	2.00%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.16%	4.48%	-0.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.16%	4.17%	-0.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.16%	5.07%	-0.91%