GCAL vs. MUB

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and MUB (iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. GCAL is actively managed, while MUB is passively managed. Over the past year, GCAL returned 7.03% vs 7.06% for MUB. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GCAL charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for MUB.

Performance

GCAL vs. MUB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCAL achieves a 1.66% return, which is significantly higher than MUB's 1.32% return.

GCAL

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: 0.68%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 2.26%
• 1Y: 7.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MUB

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 1.32%
• 6M: 1.88%
• 1Y: 7.06%
• 3Y*: 3.46%
• 5Y*: 0.91%
• 10Y*: 2.00%

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

GCAL vs. MUB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	1.66%	4.60%	1.65%
MUB iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF	1.32%	3.78%	1.03%

Correlation

The correlation between GCAL and MUB is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.77

The correlation between GCAL and MUB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GCAL vs. MUB — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCAL

GCAL Risk / Return Rank: 77
GCAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
GCAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GCAL Omega Ratio Rank: 91
GCAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GCAL Martin Ratio Rank: 61

MUB

MUB Risk / Return Rank: 67
MUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
MUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
MUB Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
MUB Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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. MUB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB). 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.

	GCAL	MUB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.90	2.43	+0.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.17	3.55	+0.62
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.51	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	2.42	+0.62
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.04	8.59	+2.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GCAL vs. MUB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.90, which is comparable to the MUB Sharpe Ratio of 2.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCAL and MUB, 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

	GCAL	MUB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.90	2.43	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.23	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.41	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.19	0.58	+0.60

Drawdowns

GCAL vs. MUB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, smaller than the maximum MUB drawdown of -13.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and MUB.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCAL	MUB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-13.68%	+9.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.24%	-2.79%	+0.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.34%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-11.88%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-13.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	-0.62%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-2.23%	+1.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	0.79%	-0.17%

Volatility

GCAL vs. MUB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) is 0.73%, while iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB) has a volatility of 0.98%. This indicates that GCAL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MUB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCAL	MUB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.73%	0.98%	-0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.76%	2.23%	-0.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.45%	2.93%	-0.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.63%	4.06%	-0.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.63%	4.92%	-1.29%

GCAL vs. MUB - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCAL has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than MUB's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCAL vs. MUB - Dividend Comparison

GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, more than MUB's 3.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	3.32%	3.06%	1.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MUB iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF	3.17%	3.14%	3.01%	2.65%	2.11%	1.81%	2.11%	2.42%	2.46%	2.26%	2.21%	2.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GCAL and MUB in my portfolio?

GCAL and MUB have a correlation of 0.72, 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 MUB?

MUB has higher volatility (0.98%) compared to GCAL (0.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCAL dropped -4.39% vs MUB's -13.68%.

Which ETF is better, GCAL or MUB?

On 1-year performance, MUB leads with 7.06% vs 7.03% for GCAL. On fees, MUB is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, GCAL has been the lower-risk option at 0.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GCAL or MUB?

Over the 1-year period, MUB has performed better with a 7.06% return vs 7.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCAL or MUB?

MUB is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for GCAL.

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

GCAL has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 3.17% for MUB.

What is the main difference between GCAL and MUB?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GCAL and 0.07% for MUB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.90 vs 2.43), 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.