GCAL vs. BSMQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and BSMQ (Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. GCAL is actively managed, while BSMQ is passively managed. Over the past year, GCAL returned 6.41% vs 3.07% for BSMQ. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCAL charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for BSMQ.

Performance

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCAL achieves a 1.77% return, which is significantly higher than BSMQ's 1.09% return.

GCAL

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 1.13%
• YTD: 1.77%
• 6M: 1.99%
• 1Y: 6.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BSMQ

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.09%
• 6M: 1.21%
• 1Y: 3.07%
• 3Y*: 2.82%
• 5Y*: 0.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	1.77%	4.60%	1.70%
BSMQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF	1.09%	3.12%	1.21%

Correlation

The correlation between GCAL and BSMQ is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2024	0.37

The correlation between GCAL and BSMQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.19 (1 year) to 0.37 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GCAL vs. BSMQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCAL

GCAL Risk / Return Rank: 79
GCAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GCAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
GCAL Omega Ratio Rank: 92
GCAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GCAL Martin Ratio Rank: 63

BSMQ

BSMQ Risk / Return Rank: 89
BSMQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
BSMQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
BSMQ Omega Ratio Rank: 87
BSMQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
BSMQ Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMQ). 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.

	GCAL	BSMQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	2.34	+0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	3.75	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.49	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	9.40	-6.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.35	24.86	-14.51

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is comparable to the BSMQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCAL and BSMQ, 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

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, smaller than the maximum BSMQ drawdown of -13.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and BSMQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCAL	BSMQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-13.18%	+8.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.24%	-0.33%	-1.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-2.53%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-11.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	0.00%	-0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.85%	-3.45%	+2.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	0.12%	+0.50%

Volatility

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) has a higher volatility of 0.69% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMQ) at 0.39%. This indicates that GCAL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSMQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCAL	BSMQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.69%	0.39%	+0.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.80%	0.94%	+0.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.43%	1.32%	+1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.60%	2.67%	+0.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.60%	4.77%	-1.17%

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCAL has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than BSMQ's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCAL vs. BSMQ - Dividend Comparison

GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.31%, more than BSMQ's 2.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BSMQ Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF	2.75%	2.74%	2.75%	2.47%	1.60%	1.14%	1.57%	0.44%
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	3.31%	3.06%	1.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GCAL and BSMQ in my portfolio?

GCAL and BSMQ have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GCAL or BSMQ?

GCAL has higher volatility (0.69%) compared to BSMQ (0.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCAL dropped -4.39% vs BSMQ's -13.18%.

Which ETF is better, GCAL or BSMQ?

On 1-year performance, GCAL leads with 6.41% vs 3.07% for BSMQ. On fees, BSMQ is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BSMQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GCAL or BSMQ?

Over the 1-year period, GCAL has performed better with a 6.41% return vs 3.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCAL or BSMQ?

BSMQ is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for GCAL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GCAL or BSMQ?

GCAL has the higher dividend yield at 3.31%, compared with 2.75% for BSMQ.

What is the main difference between GCAL and BSMQ?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GCAL and 0.18% for BSMQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 2.34), 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.