GCMFX vs. NQP
Compare and contrast key facts about PIMCO California Municipal Opportunistic Value Fund (GCMFX) and Nuveen Pennsylvania Quality Municipal Income (NQP).
GCMFX is managed by Gurtin. It was launched on Nov 2, 2014. NQP is an actively managed fund by Nuveen. It was launched on Feb 21, 1991.
Performance
GCMFX vs. NQP - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
GCMFX vs. NQP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCMFX PIMCO California Municipal Opportunistic Value Fund | -0.46% | 2.76% | 2.24% | 5.22% | -3.47% | 1.76% | 2.69% | 5.06% | 1.83% | 2.96% |
NQP Nuveen Pennsylvania Quality Municipal Income | 2.31% | 15.46% | 2.70% | 7.44% | -21.95% | 7.75% | 7.08% | 21.21% | -2.28% | 5.96% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GCMFX achieves a -0.46% return, which is significantly lower than NQP's 2.31% return. Over the past 10 years, GCMFX has underperformed NQP with an annualized return of 1.83%, while NQP has yielded a comparatively higher 3.35% annualized return.
GCMFX
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- -2.03%
- YTD
- -0.46%
- 6M
- 1.12%
- 1Y
- 2.79%
- 3Y*
- 2.53%
- 5Y*
- 1.46%
- 10Y*
- 1.83%
NQP
- 1D
- 3.20%
- 1M
- -0.18%
- YTD
- 2.31%
- 6M
- 3.36%
- 1Y
- 15.31%
- 3Y*
- 8.00%
- 5Y*
- 1.69%
- 10Y*
- 3.35%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GCMFX vs. NQP - Expense Ratio Comparison
GCMFX has a 0.63% expense ratio, which is lower than NQP's 1.27% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
GCMFX vs. NQP — Risk / Return Rank
GCMFX
NQP
GCMFX vs. NQP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO California Municipal Opportunistic Value Fund (GCMFX) and Nuveen Pennsylvania Quality Municipal Income (NQP). 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.
| GCMFX | NQP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.77 | 1.67 | -0.89 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.07 | 2.52 | -1.45 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.35 | -0.14 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.78 | 3.53 | -2.75 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.02 | 9.67 | -7.65 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GCMFX | NQP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.77 | 1.67 | -0.89 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.46 | 0.17 | +0.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.67 | 0.31 | +0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.69 | 0.41 | +0.28 |
Correlation
The correlation between GCMFX and NQP is 0.38, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
GCMFX vs. NQP - Dividend Comparison
GCMFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.16%, less than NQP's 7.85% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCMFX PIMCO California Municipal Opportunistic Value Fund | 3.16% | 3.39% | 3.34% | 2.59% | 1.91% | 2.34% | 2.65% | 2.56% | 2.40% | 1.51% | 0.17% | 0.00% |
NQP Nuveen Pennsylvania Quality Municipal Income | 7.85% | 7.87% | 6.69% | 3.07% | 4.89% | 4.51% | 4.38% | 4.23% | 5.34% | 5.34% | 5.67% | 6.10% |
Drawdowns
GCMFX vs. NQP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GCMFX drawdown since its inception was -7.08%, smaller than the maximum NQP drawdown of -41.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCMFX and NQP.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| GCMFX | NQP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.08% | -41.87% | +34.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.19% | -4.63% | +0.44% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -7.08% | -32.41% | +25.33% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -7.08% | -32.41% | +25.33% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.03% | -1.52% | -0.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.04% | -6.93% | +5.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.63% | 1.69% | -0.06% |
Volatility
GCMFX vs. NQP - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for PIMCO California Municipal Opportunistic Value Fund (GCMFX) is 0.86%, while Nuveen Pennsylvania Quality Municipal Income (NQP) has a volatility of 4.14%. This indicates that GCMFX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NQP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| GCMFX | NQP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.86% | 4.14% | -3.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.51% | 5.42% | -3.91% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.28% | 9.26% | -4.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.15% | 9.80% | -6.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 2.74% | 10.85% | -8.11% |