LSAT vs. MUST

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LSAT (Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF) and MUST (Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF) are both Money Market funds. LSAT is actively managed, while MUST is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LSAT returned 5.78%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for MUST. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LSAT charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for MUST.

Performance

LSAT vs. MUST - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) and Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LSAT achieves a 10.11% return, which is significantly higher than MUST's 1.60% return.

LSAT

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: 2.09%
• YTD: 10.11%
• 6M: 8.58%
• 1Y: 10.20%
• 3Y*: 11.66%
• 5Y*: 5.78%
• 10Y*: —

MUST

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 6M: 1.55%
• 1Y: 7.14%
• 3Y*: 3.82%
• 5Y*: 0.87%
• 10Y*: —

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

LSAT vs. MUST - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF	10.11%	-1.54%	18.16%	13.64%	-12.99%	25.10%	20.47%
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF	1.60%	4.92%	0.37%	6.23%	-8.82%	1.93%	3.23%

Correlation

The correlation between LSAT and MUST is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2020	0.10

The correlation between LSAT and MUST shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (5 years) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LSAT vs. MUST — Risk / Return Rank

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

LSAT

LSAT Risk / Return Rank: 24
LSAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
LSAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
LSAT Omega Ratio Rank: 22
LSAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
LSAT Martin Ratio Rank: 24

MUST

MUST Risk / Return Rank: 41
MUST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
MUST Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
MUST Omega Ratio Rank: 40
MUST Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
MUST Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

LSAT vs. MUST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) and Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST). 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.

	LSAT	MUST	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	1.39	-0.58
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	2.02	-0.74
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.26	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	2.38	-1.09
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.03	6.52	-3.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LSAT vs. MUST - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSAT Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is lower than the MUST Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSAT and MUST, 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

	LSAT	MUST	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81	1.39	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	0.16	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.73	0.54	+0.19

Drawdowns

LSAT vs. MUST - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSAT drawdown since its inception was -20.48%, which is greater than MUST's maximum drawdown of -13.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSAT and MUST.

Drawdown Indicators

	LSAT	MUST	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.48%	-13.83%	-6.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.94%	-3.01%	-4.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.25%	-6.08%	-12.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.48%	-13.83%	-6.65%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.59%	-0.94%	+0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.55%	-3.41%	-2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	1.10%	+2.27%

Volatility

LSAT vs. MUST - Volatility Comparison

Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) has a higher volatility of 3.26% compared to Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) at 1.80%. This indicates that LSAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MUST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LSAT	MUST	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.26%	1.80%	+1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.11%	3.60%	+5.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.59%	5.17%	+7.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.25%	5.44%	+10.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.76%	5.59%	+11.17%

LSAT vs. MUST - Expense Ratio Comparison

LSAT has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than MUST's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

LSAT vs. MUST - Dividend Comparison

LSAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, less than MUST's 3.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF	1.72%	1.90%	1.31%	1.85%	0.36%	3.44%	0.30%	0.00%	0.00%
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF	3.32%	3.28%	3.13%	2.51%	1.76%	1.62%	2.33%	2.70%	0.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LSAT and MUST in my portfolio?

LSAT and MUST have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LSAT or MUST?

LSAT has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to MUST (1.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSAT dropped -20.48% vs MUST's -13.83%.

Which ETF is better, LSAT or MUST?

On 5-year performance, LSAT leads with 5.78% vs 0.87% for MUST. On fees, MUST is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, MUST has been the lower-risk option at 1.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LSAT or MUST?

Over the 5-year period, LSAT has performed better with a 5.78% return vs 0.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LSAT or MUST?

MUST is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LSAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LSAT or MUST?

MUST has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 1.72% for LSAT.

What is the main difference between LSAT and MUST?

They also come from different issuers: Redwood and Ameriprise Financial. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LSAT and 0.23% for MUST.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MUST currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.81), 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.