GCAL vs. ZMUN

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and ZMUN (F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. GCAL is actively managed, while ZMUN is passively managed. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.30% expense ratio.

Performance

GCAL vs. ZMUN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF (ZMUN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with GCAL having a 1.86% return and ZMUN slightly higher at 1.89%.

GCAL

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 0.28%
• 6M: 1.43%
• YTD: 1.86%
• 1Y: 6.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZMUN

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.21%
• 6M: 1.80%
• YTD: 1.89%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GCAL vs. ZMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	1.86%	1.63%
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF	1.89%	0.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GCAL and ZMUN is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2025	0.18

Return for Risk

GCAL vs. ZMUN — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCAL

GCAL Risk / Return Rank: 85
GCAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
GCAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GCAL Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GCAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
GCAL Martin Ratio Rank: 73

ZMUN

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

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. ZMUN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF (ZMUN). 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	ZMUN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.87	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.54	—	—

Drawdowns

GCAL vs. ZMUN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, which is greater than ZMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and ZMUN.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCAL	ZMUN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-0.13%	-4.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.39%	-0.06%	-0.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.83%	-0.02%	-0.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.61%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GCAL	ZMUN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.54%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.81%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41%	0.54%	+1.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.56%	0.54%	+3.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.56%	0.54%	+3.02%

GCAL vs. ZMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GCAL and ZMUN have an expense ratio of 0.30%.

Dividends

GCAL vs. ZMUN - Dividend Comparison

GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.38%, more than ZMUN's 2.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	3.38%	3.06%	1.41%
ZMUN F/m Ultrashort Tax-Free Municipal ETF	2.59%	0.70%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GCAL and ZMUN in my portfolio?

GCAL and ZMUN have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GCAL or ZMUN?

Both ETFs have the same 0.30% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCAL or ZMUN?

GCAL and ZMUN have the same expense ratio: 0.30% per year.

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

GCAL has the higher dividend yield at 3.38%, compared with 2.59% for ZMUN.

What is the main difference between GCAL and ZMUN?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and F/m Investments.