LMUB vs. MLN
LMUB (iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF) and MLN (VanEck Long Muni ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - LMUB tracks the ICE AMT-Free US Long National Municipal Index while MLN tracks the Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, LMUB returned 9.37% vs 9.33% for MLN. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LMUB charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for MLN.
Performance
LMUB vs. MLN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LMUB achieves a 2.32% return, which is significantly higher than MLN's 1.92% return.
LMUB
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.90%
- YTD
- 2.32%
- 6M
- 2.47%
- 1Y
- 9.37%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MLN
- 1D
- -0.26%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- 1.92%
- 6M
- 2.58%
- 1Y
- 9.33%
- 3Y*
- 3.46%
- 5Y*
- -1.05%
- 10Y*
- 1.49%
LMUB vs. MLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LMUB iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF | 2.32% | 3.52% |
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF | 1.92% | 3.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between LMUB and MLN is 0.60, 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 | 0.60 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 19, 2025 | 0.68 |
The correlation between LMUB and MLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
LMUB vs. MLN — Risk / Return Rank
LMUB
MLN
LMUB vs. MLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF (LMUB) and VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN). 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.
| LMUB | MLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 1.45 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.02 | 3.66 | -0.64 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.61 | 12.02 | -1.41 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LMUB | MLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.24 | 2.11 | +0.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | -0.14 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.17 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.82 | 0.32 | +0.50 |
Drawdowns
LMUB vs. MLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LMUB drawdown since its inception was -5.51%, smaller than the maximum MLN drawdown of -28.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LMUB and MLN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LMUB | MLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.51% | -28.36% | +22.85% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.11% | -2.56% | -0.55% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -9.84% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -24.46% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.46% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -6.58% | +6.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.61% | -5.73% | +4.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.89% | 0.78% | +0.11% |
Volatility
LMUB vs. MLN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF (LMUB) is 1.44%, while VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) has a volatility of 1.56%. This indicates that LMUB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LMUB | MLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.44% | 1.56% | -0.12% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.05% | 3.19% | -0.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.21% | 4.45% | -0.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.97% | 7.31% | -1.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.97% | 8.88% | -2.91% |
LMUB vs. MLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
LMUB has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than MLN's 0.24% 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
LMUB vs. MLN - Dividend Comparison
LMUB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.77%, more than MLN's 3.71% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LMUB iShares Long-Term National Muni Bond ETF | 3.77% | 3.14% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF | 3.71% | 3.73% | 3.59% | 3.19% | 2.67% | 2.52% | 2.69% | 2.98% | 3.09% | 2.91% | 3.16% | 3.38% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LMUB and MLN have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MLN has higher volatility (1.56%) compared to LMUB (1.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LMUB dropped -5.51% vs MLN's -28.36%.
On 1-year performance, LMUB leads with 9.37% vs 9.33% for MLN. On fees, LMUB is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, LMUB has been the lower-risk option at 1.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LMUB has performed better with a 9.37% return vs 9.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LMUB is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for MLN.
LMUB has the higher dividend yield at 3.77%, compared with 3.71% for MLN.
LMUB tracks ICE AMT-Free US Long National Municipal Index, while MLN tracks Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for LMUB and 0.24% for MLN.
LMUB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 2.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for LMUB and MLN
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