PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GMUN vs. BSMQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMUN achieves a -0.34% return, which is significantly lower than BSMQ's 0.81% return.


GMUN

1D
0.00%
1M
-0.79%
YTD
-0.34%
6M
0.02%
1Y
4.76%
3Y*
3.06%
5Y*
10Y*

BSMQ

1D
0.07%
1M
0.17%
YTD
0.81%
6M
1.18%
1Y
2.98%
3Y*
2.90%
5Y*
0.31%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GMUN
Goldman Sachs Community Municipal Bond ETF
-0.34%5.92%0.31%3.68%
BSMQ
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF
0.81%3.12%1.99%3.36%

Correlation

The correlation between GMUN and BSMQ is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.21

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 10, 2023

0.56

Over the past year, the correlation between GMUN and BSMQ has dropped to 0.21 - well below their long-term average of 0.56, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GMUN vs. BSMQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMUN
GMUN Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
GMUN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GMUN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
GMUN Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
GMUN Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
GMUN Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank

BSMQ
BSMQ Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
BSMQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BSMQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
BSMQ Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
BSMQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
BSMQ Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Community Municipal Bond ETF (GMUN) 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.


GMUNBSMQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.47

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.75

9.12

-7.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.36

23.88

-18.52

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMUN Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the BSMQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMUN 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GMUNBSMQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.04

2.26

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.99

0.25

+0.75

Drawdowns

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMUN drawdown since its inception was -4.35%, smaller than the maximum BSMQ drawdown of -13.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMUN and BSMQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GMUNBSMQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-4.35%

-13.18%

+8.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.83%

-0.33%

-2.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.37%

-2.53%

-0.84%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.50%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.29%

-0.05%

-2.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.02%

-3.47%

+2.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.92%

0.12%

+0.80%

Volatility

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Community Municipal Bond ETF (GMUN) has a higher volatility of 1.09% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMQ) at 0.40%. This indicates that GMUN'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GMUNBSMQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.09%

0.40%

+0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.00%

0.94%

+1.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.42%

1.33%

+1.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.96%

2.68%

+0.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.96%

4.79%

-1.83%

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMUN has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than BSMQ's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

GMUN vs. BSMQ - Dividend Comparison

GMUN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.12%, more than BSMQ's 2.76% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
BSMQ
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Municipal Bond ETF
2.76%2.74%2.75%2.47%1.60%1.14%1.57%0.44%
GMUN
Goldman Sachs Community Municipal Bond ETF
3.12%2.94%3.22%2.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


GMUN and BSMQ have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GMUN has higher volatility (1.09%) compared to BSMQ (0.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMUN dropped -4.35% vs BSMQ's -13.18%.

On 3-year performance, GMUN leads with 3.06% vs 2.90% for BSMQ. On fees, GMUN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BSMQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, GMUN has performed better with a 3.06% return vs 2.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GMUN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for BSMQ.

GMUN has the higher dividend yield at 3.12%, compared with 2.76% for BSMQ.

GMUN tracks Bloomberg Goldman Sachs Community Municipal Index, while BSMQ tracks Invesco BulletShares Municipal Bond 2026 Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for GMUN and 0.18% for BSMQ.

BSMQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 2.04), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GMUN and BSMQ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer