MINN vs. AMUN
MINN (Mairs & Power Minnesota Municipal Bond ETF) and AMUN (abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.
Performance
MINN vs. AMUN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MINN achieves a 0.35% return, which is significantly lower than AMUN's 1.11% return.
MINN
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 0.92%
- 1Y
- 6.52%
- 3Y*
- 3.64%
- 5Y*
- -0.31%
- 10Y*
- —
AMUN
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.32%
- YTD
- 1.11%
- 6M
- 1.36%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MINN vs. AMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MINN Mairs & Power Minnesota Municipal Bond ETF | 0.35% | 1.09% |
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.11% | 0.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between MINN and AMUN is 0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2025 | 0.08 |
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
MINN vs. AMUN — Risk / Return Rank
MINN
AMUN
MINN vs. AMUN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mairs & Power Minnesota Municipal Bond ETF (MINN) and abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF (AMUN). 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.
| MINN | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.32 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.47 | — | — |
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
| MINN | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.51 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.06 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.02 | 2.05 | -2.07 |
Drawdowns
MINN vs. AMUN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MINN drawdown since its inception was -18.37%, which is greater than AMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MINN and AMUN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MINN | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.37% | -0.61% | -17.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.82% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.77% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.37% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.60% | -0.02% | -2.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.78% | -0.09% | -7.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.88% | — | — |
Volatility
MINN vs. AMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MINN | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.99% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.60% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.33% | 1.01% | +3.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.09% | 1.01% | +4.08% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.98% | 1.01% | +3.97% |
MINN vs. AMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both MINN and AMUN have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
MINN vs. AMUN - Dividend Comparison
MINN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.00%, more than AMUN's 1.89% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.89% | 0.66% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MINN Mairs & Power Minnesota Municipal Bond ETF | 3.00% | 2.94% | 2.65% | 1.80% | 1.34% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MINN and AMUN have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MINN and AMUN have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.
MINN has the higher dividend yield at 3.00%, compared with 1.89% for AMUN.
They also come from different issuers: Mairs & Power and abrdn.
Find the right allocation for MINN and AMUN
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