MMCA vs. PUSH

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MMCA (IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF) and PUSH (PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MMCA returned 6.28% vs 3.78% for PUSH. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MMCA charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PUSH.

Performance

MMCA vs. PUSH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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 PUSH's 1.29% return.

MMCA

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

PUSH

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 1.29%
• 6M: 1.63%
• 1Y: 3.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MMCA vs. PUSH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	0.80%	5.74%	1.67%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	1.29%	4.16%	1.74%

Correlation

The correlation between MMCA and PUSH is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2024	0.37

Return for Risk

MMCA vs. PUSH — 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

PUSH

PUSH Risk / Return Rank: 88
PUSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
PUSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
PUSH Omega Ratio Rank: 95
PUSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
PUSH Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. PUSH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.49	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	3.77	-0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.69	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	7.57	-5.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.64	18.81	-12.17
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. PUSH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the PUSH Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMCA and PUSH, 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	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44	2.49	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	2.89	-2.85

Drawdowns

MMCA vs. PUSH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMCA drawdown since its inception was -15.97%, which is greater than PUSH's maximum drawdown of -0.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMCA and PUSH.

Drawdown Indicators

	MMCA	PUSH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.97%	-0.85%	-15.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.01%	-0.50%	-2.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.39%	-0.03%	-1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.04%	-0.11%	-6.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.95%	0.20%	+0.75%

Volatility

MMCA vs. PUSH - Volatility Comparison

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA) has a higher volatility of 0.90% compared to PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH) at 0.31%. This indicates that MMCA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PUSH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MMCA	PUSH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.90%	0.31%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.89%	0.98%	+0.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60%	1.53%	+1.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.60%	1.30%	+2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.60%	1.30%	+2.30%

MMCA vs. PUSH - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMCA has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is higher than PUSH's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

MMCA vs. PUSH - Dividend Comparison

MMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, more than PUSH's 3.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MMCA IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF	3.29%	3.39%	3.66%	3.57%	2.90%	0.05%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	3.24%	3.45%	1.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MMCA and PUSH in my portfolio?

MMCA and PUSH have a correlation of 0.28, 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 PUSH?

MMCA has higher volatility (0.90%) compared to PUSH (0.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMCA dropped -15.97% vs PUSH's -0.85%.

Which ETF is better, MMCA or PUSH?

On 1-year performance, MMCA leads with 6.28% vs 3.78% for PUSH. On fees, PUSH is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PUSH has been the lower-risk option at 0.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MMCA or PUSH?

Over the 1-year period, MMCA has performed better with a 6.28% return vs 3.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MMCA or PUSH?

PUSH is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for MMCA.

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

MMCA has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 3.24% for PUSH.

What is the main difference between MMCA and PUSH?

They also come from different issuers: IndexIQ and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for MMCA and 0.15% for PUSH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PUSH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 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.