MMCA vs. GUMI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MMCA (IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF) and GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MMCA returned 6.28% vs 3.17% for GUMI. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MMCA charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for GUMI.

Performance

MMCA vs. GUMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MMCA achieves a 0.80% return, which is significantly lower than GUMI's 1.12% return.

MMCA

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 0.80%
• 6M: 1.19%
• 1Y: 6.28%
• 3Y*: 4.10%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GUMI

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 1.12%
• 6M: 1.35%
• 1Y: 3.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MMCA vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	0.80%	5.74%	0.83%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.12%	3.39%	1.52%

Correlation

The correlation between MMCA and GUMI is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.31

Return for Risk

MMCA vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

MMCA

MMCA Risk / Return Rank: 66
MMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
MMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
MMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
MMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 42

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 93
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

MMCA vs. GUMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). 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.

	MMCA	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.91	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	4.68	-1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.64	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	8.90	-6.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.64	37.70	-31.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MMCA vs. GUMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the GUMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMCA and GUMI, 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

	MMCA	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44	2.91	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	3.32	-3.27

Drawdowns

MMCA vs. GUMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMCA drawdown since its inception was -15.97%, which is greater than GUMI's maximum drawdown of -0.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMCA and GUMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	MMCA	GUMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.97%	-0.48%	-15.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.01%	-0.36%	-2.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.39%	0.00%	-1.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.04%	-0.05%	-6.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.95%	0.08%	+0.87%

Volatility

MMCA vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) has a higher volatility of 0.90% compared to Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) at 0.25%. This indicates that MMCA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GUMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MMCA	GUMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.90%	0.25%	+0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.89%	0.55%	+1.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60%	1.10%	+1.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.60%	0.99%	+2.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.60%	0.99%	+2.61%

MMCA vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMCA has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is higher than GUMI's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

MMCA vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison

MMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, more than GUMI's 2.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.77%	2.95%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	3.29%	3.39%	3.66%	3.57%	2.90%	0.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MMCA and GUMI in my portfolio?

MMCA and GUMI have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MMCA or GUMI?

MMCA has higher volatility (0.90%) compared to GUMI (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMCA dropped -15.97% vs GUMI's -0.48%.

Which ETF is better, MMCA or GUMI?

On 1-year performance, MMCA leads with 6.28% vs 3.17% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, GUMI has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MMCA or GUMI?

Over the 1-year period, MMCA has performed better with a 6.28% return vs 3.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MMCA or GUMI?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for MMCA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MMCA or GUMI?

MMCA has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 2.77% for GUMI.

What is the main difference between MMCA and GUMI?

They also come from different issuers: IndexIQ and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for MMCA and 0.16% for GUMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.44), 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.