GUMI vs. SMMU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) and SMMU (PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GUMI returned 3.18% vs 3.92% for SMMU. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GUMI charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for SMMU.

Performance

GUMI vs. SMMU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) and PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF (SMMU). 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 GUMI having a 1.06% return and SMMU slightly higher at 1.10%.

GUMI

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 1.06%
• 6M: 1.20%
• 1Y: 3.18%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SMMU

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 1.10%
• 6M: 1.36%
• 1Y: 3.92%
• 3Y*: 3.67%
• 5Y*: 1.90%
• 10Y*: 1.82%

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

GUMI vs. SMMU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.06%	3.39%	1.52%
SMMU PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF	1.10%	4.06%	1.13%

Correlation

The correlation between GUMI and SMMU is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.25

The correlation between GUMI and SMMU shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (1 year) to 0.25 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GUMI vs. SMMU — Risk / Return Rank

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

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 93
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 96

SMMU

SMMU Risk / Return Rank: 92
SMMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
SMMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
SMMU Omega Ratio Rank: 97
SMMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
SMMU Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

GUMI vs. SMMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) and PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF (SMMU). 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.

	GUMI	SMMU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	3.84	-0.92
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.70	5.82	-1.12
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.64	1.90	-0.26
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.93	5.10	+3.83
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	37.83	18.24	+19.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GUMI vs. SMMU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GUMI Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is comparable to the SMMU Sharpe Ratio of 3.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GUMI and SMMU, 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

	GUMI	SMMU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.92	3.84	-0.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.67	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.29	0.60	+2.68

Drawdowns

GUMI vs. SMMU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GUMI drawdown since its inception was -0.48%, smaller than the maximum SMMU drawdown of -5.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GUMI and SMMU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GUMI	SMMU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.48%	-5.09%	+4.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.36%	-0.77%	+0.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.95%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-4.76%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-5.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.03%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.05%	-0.55%	+0.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.08%	0.22%	-0.14%

Volatility

GUMI vs. SMMU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) is 0.25%, while PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF (SMMU) has a volatility of 0.31%. This indicates that GUMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMMU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GUMI	SMMU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.25%	0.31%	-0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.55%	0.79%	-0.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.09%	1.02%	+0.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.99%	1.67%	-0.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.99%	2.73%	-1.74%

GUMI vs. SMMU - Expense Ratio Comparison

GUMI has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than SMMU's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

GUMI vs. SMMU - Dividend Comparison

GUMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, less than SMMU's 2.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.77%	2.95%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SMMU PIMCO Short Term Municipal Bond Active ETF	2.84%	2.80%	3.03%	2.79%	1.37%	0.60%	1.19%	1.82%	1.57%	1.41%	1.03%	0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GUMI and SMMU in my portfolio?

GUMI and SMMU have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GUMI or SMMU?

SMMU has higher volatility (0.31%) compared to GUMI (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GUMI dropped -0.48% vs SMMU's -5.09%.

Which ETF is better, GUMI or SMMU?

On 1-year performance, SMMU leads with 3.92% vs 3.18% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GUMI or SMMU?

Over the 1-year period, SMMU has performed better with a 3.92% return vs 3.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GUMI or SMMU?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for SMMU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GUMI or SMMU?

SMMU has the higher dividend yield at 2.84%, compared with 2.77% for GUMI.

What is the main difference between GUMI and SMMU?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for GUMI and 0.35% for SMMU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SMMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs 2.92), 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.