MMCA vs. GUMI

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI).

MMCA and GUMI are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. MMCA is an actively managed fund by IndexIQ. It was launched on Dec 21, 2021. GUMI is an actively managed fund by Goldman Sachs. It was launched on Jul 23, 2024.

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.

MMCA vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	-0.20%	5.74%	0.83%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	0.67%	3.39%	1.52%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MMCA achieves a -0.20% return, which is significantly lower than GUMI's 0.67% return.

MMCA

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: -2.24%
• YTD: -0.20%
• 6M: 1.22%
• 1Y: 4.65%
• 3Y*: 3.53%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GUMI

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 0.67%
• 6M: 1.49%
• 1Y: 3.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MMCA vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

MMCA

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF

GUMI

Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF

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: 73
MMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
MMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 76
MMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
MMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 55

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 98
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 97
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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	1.37	2.82	-1.45
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	4.39	-2.60
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.62	-0.32
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.65	6.88	-5.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.93	29.42	-23.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MMCA vs. GUMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMCA Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is lower than the GUMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMCA and GUMI, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MMCA	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.37	2.82	-1.45
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.02	3.32	-3.34

Correlation

The correlation between MMCA and GUMI is 0.32, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

MMCA vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison

MMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.35%, more than GUMI's 2.81% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	3.35%	3.39%	3.66%	3.57%	2.90%	0.05%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.81%	2.95%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

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%	-0.48%	-2.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.37%	-0.04%	-2.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.26%	-0.05%	-7.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.84%	0.11%	+0.73%

Volatility

MMCA vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) has a higher volatility of 1.18% compared to Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) at 0.18%. 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	1.18%	0.18%	+1.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.78%	0.75%	+1.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.42%	1.15%	+2.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.64%	1.01%	+2.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.64%	1.01%	+2.63%