MLN vs. CSHP
MLN (VanEck Long Muni ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MLN is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg AMT-Free Long Continuous, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. MLN is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, MLN returned 9.33% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.18, they often move in opposite directions. MLN charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.
Performance
MLN vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MLN achieves a 1.92% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.63% return.
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%
CSHP
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.27%
- YTD
- 1.63%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 3.96%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MLN vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MLN VanEck Long Muni ETF | 1.92% | 1.82% | 0.85% |
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 1.63% | 4.10% | 2.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between MLN and CSHP is -0.19, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.19 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024 | -0.18 |
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
MLN vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank
MLN
CSHP
MLN vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.
| MLN | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -9.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -28.10 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 7.44 | -5.99 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.66 | 65.71 | -62.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.02 | 432.16 | -420.14 |
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
| MLN | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.11 | 11.91 | -9.80 |
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 | 0.32 | 10.75 | -10.43 |
Drawdowns
MLN vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MLN drawdown since its inception was -28.36%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLN and CSHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MLN | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.36% | -0.08% | -28.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.56% | -0.06% | -2.50% |
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 | -6.58% | 0.00% | -6.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.73% | -0.00% | -5.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.78% | 0.01% | +0.77% |
Volatility
MLN vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Long Muni ETF (MLN) has a higher volatility of 1.56% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that MLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MLN | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.56% | 0.07% | +1.49% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.19% | 0.24% | +2.95% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.45% | 0.33% | +4.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.31% | 0.40% | +6.91% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.88% | 0.40% | +8.48% |
MLN vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
MLN has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
MLN vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison
MLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.71%, less than CSHP's 3.92% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 3.92% | 5.39% | 1.96% | 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
MLN and CSHP have a correlation of -0.19, 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 CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MLN dropped -28.36% vs CSHP's -0.08%.
On 1-year performance, MLN leads with 9.33% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MLN has performed better with a 9.33% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for MLN.
CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 3.71% for MLN.
MLN is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for MLN and 0.20% for CSHP.
CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.91 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 MLN and CSHP
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