JHMU vs. BND

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

JHMU (John Hancock Dynamic Municipal Bond ETF) and BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JHMU is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the John Hancock Dimensional Utilities Index, while BND is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, JHMU returned 7.44% vs 5.11% for BND. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JHMU charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for BND.

Performance

JHMU vs. BND - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Dynamic Municipal Bond ETF (JHMU) and Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JHMU achieves a 1.66% return, which is significantly higher than BND's 0.27% return.

JHMU

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 0.69%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 2.16%
• 1Y: 7.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BND

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 0.27%
• 6M: 0.12%
• 1Y: 5.11%
• 3Y*: 3.96%
• 5Y*: 0.09%
• 10Y*: 1.58%

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

JHMU vs. BND - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JHMU John Hancock Dynamic Municipal Bond ETF	1.66%	5.03%	3.76%	7.77%
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF	0.27%	7.08%	1.38%	6.61%

Correlation

The correlation between JHMU and BND is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2023	0.69

The correlation between JHMU and BND has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JHMU vs. BND — Risk / Return Rank

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

JHMU

JHMU Risk / Return Rank: 74
JHMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
JHMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
JHMU Omega Ratio Rank: 88
JHMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
JHMU Martin Ratio Rank: 56

BND

BND Risk / Return Rank: 37
BND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
BND Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BND Omega Ratio Rank: 35
BND Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
BND Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

JHMU vs. BND - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Dynamic Municipal Bond ETF (JHMU) and Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND). 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.

	JHMU	BND	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	1.36	+1.29
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.92	2.03	+1.88
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.24	+0.32
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	1.92	+0.78
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.67	5.80	+3.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JHMU vs. BND - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JHMU Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is higher than the BND Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JHMU and BND, 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

	JHMU	BND	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.65	1.36	+1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.01	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.29	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.74	0.59	+1.16

Drawdowns

JHMU vs. BND - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JHMU drawdown since its inception was -4.48%, smaller than the maximum BND drawdown of -18.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHMU and BND.

Drawdown Indicators

	JHMU	BND	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.48%	-18.58%	+14.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.77%	-2.68%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.60%	-2.37%	+1.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.84%	-3.06%	+2.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.77%	0.88%	-0.11%

Volatility

JHMU vs. BND - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for John Hancock Dynamic Municipal Bond ETF (JHMU) is 0.96%, while Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) has a volatility of 1.23%. This indicates that JHMU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JHMU	BND	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.96%	1.23%	-0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.21%	2.66%	-0.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.82%	3.78%	-0.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.11%	6.02%	-1.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.11%	5.53%	-1.42%

JHMU vs. BND - Expense Ratio Comparison

JHMU has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than BND's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

JHMU vs. BND - Dividend Comparison

JHMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.72%, less than BND's 3.97% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF	3.97%	3.86%	3.67%	3.09%	2.60%	2.12%	2.38%	2.72%	2.81%	2.54%	2.51%	2.57%
JHMU John Hancock Dynamic Municipal Bond ETF	3.72%	4.36%	7.29%	0.63%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JHMU and BND in my portfolio?

JHMU and BND have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JHMU or BND?

BND has higher volatility (1.23%) compared to JHMU (0.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHMU dropped -4.48% vs BND's -18.58%.

Which ETF is better, JHMU or BND?

On 1-year performance, JHMU leads with 7.44% vs 5.11% for BND. On fees, BND is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, JHMU has been the lower-risk option at 0.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JHMU or BND?

Over the 1-year period, JHMU has performed better with a 7.44% return vs 5.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JHMU or BND?

BND is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for JHMU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JHMU or BND?

BND has the higher dividend yield at 3.97%, compared with 3.72% for JHMU.

What is the main difference between JHMU and BND?

JHMU is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while BND is Total Bond Market. JHMU tracks John Hancock Dimensional Utilities Index, while BND tracks Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index. They also come from different issuers: John Hancock and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for JHMU and 0.03% for BND.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JHMU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 1.36), 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.