FUMB vs. FALN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FUMB (First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF) and FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FUMB is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by First Trust, while FALN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. FUMB is actively managed, while FALN is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FUMB returned 1.96%/yr vs 3.78%/yr for FALN. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FUMB charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FALN.

Performance

FUMB vs. FALN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FUMB achieves a 1.07% return, which is significantly lower than FALN's 1.56% return.

FUMB

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.15%
• YTD: 1.07%
• 6M: 1.30%
• 1Y: 2.55%
• 3Y*: 2.98%
• 5Y*: 1.96%
• 10Y*: —

FALN

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 0.68%
• YTD: 1.56%
• 6M: 1.36%
• 1Y: 8.66%
• 3Y*: 9.18%
• 5Y*: 3.78%
• 10Y*: —

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

FUMB vs. FALN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FUMB First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF	1.07%	2.78%	3.05%	2.84%	-0.03%	0.38%	1.25%	1.76%	0.30%
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	1.56%	8.92%	7.68%	13.47%	-13.79%	5.40%	14.85%	17.42%	-4.43%

Correlation

The correlation between FUMB and FALN is 0.08, 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	0.08
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

FUMB vs. FALN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FUMB

FUMB Risk / Return Rank: 95
FUMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FUMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FUMB Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FUMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FUMB Martin Ratio Rank: 97

FALN

FALN Risk / Return Rank: 54
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

FUMB vs. FALN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FUMB	FALN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.38	1.91	+1.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.34	2.78	+2.56
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.76	1.37	+0.39
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.70	2.20	+9.50
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	44.37	9.17	+35.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FUMB vs. FALN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FUMB Sharpe Ratio is 3.38, which is higher than the FALN Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FUMB and FALN, 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

	FUMB	FALN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.38	1.91	+1.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.70	0.52	+1.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	0.74	+0.26

Drawdowns

FUMB vs. FALN - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	FUMB	FALN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.68%	-29.22%	+26.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.22%	-3.96%	+3.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.60%	-5.92%	+5.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-1.25%	-18.78%	+17.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.03%	-0.26%	+0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.19%	-3.32%	+3.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.06%	0.95%	-0.89%

Volatility

FUMB vs. FALN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Ultra Short Duration Municipal ETF (FUMB) is 0.20%, while iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) has a volatility of 1.38%. This indicates that FUMB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FALN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FUMB	FALN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.20%	1.38%	-1.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.53%	3.64%	-3.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76%	4.54%	-3.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.16%	7.31%	-6.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.77%	8.95%	-7.18%

FUMB vs. FALN - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FUMB vs. FALN - Dividend Comparison

FUMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.80%, less than FALN's 6.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	6.46%	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 FUMB and FALN in my portfolio?

FUMB and FALN have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FUMB or FALN?

FALN has higher volatility (1.38%) compared to FUMB (0.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FUMB dropped -2.68% vs FALN's -29.22%.

Which ETF is better, FUMB or FALN?

On 5-year performance, FALN leads with 3.78% 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 0.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FUMB or FALN?

Over the 5-year period, FALN has performed better with a 3.78% return vs 1.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FUMB or FALN?

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

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

FALN has the higher dividend yield at 6.46%, compared with 2.80% for FUMB.

What is the main difference between FUMB and FALN?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FUMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.38 vs 1.91), 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.