MUB vs. NYF
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB) and iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF).
MUB and NYF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. MUB is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index. It was launched on Sep 7, 2007. NYF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index. It was launched on Oct 4, 2007. Both MUB and NYF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: MUB or NYF.
Key characteristics
| MUB | NYF | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 1.59% | 1.55% |
| 1Y Return | 5.64% | 5.87% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 0.00% | -0.15% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 1.22% | 1.02% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 2.20% | 2.05% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.55 | 1.80 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.23 | 2.58 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.30 | 1.35 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.93 | 0.90 |
| Martin Ratio | 6.44 | 7.20 |
| Ulcer Index | 0.94% | 0.87% |
| Daily Std Dev | 3.90% | 3.46% |
| Max Drawdown | -13.68% | -13.12% |
| Current Drawdown | -1.19% | -1.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUB and NYF is 0.49, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Performance
MUB vs. NYF - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with MUB having a 1.59% return and NYF slightly lower at 1.55%. Over the past 10 years, MUB has outperformed NYF with an annualized return of 2.20%, while NYF has yielded a comparatively lower 2.05% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
MUB vs. NYF - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUB has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than NYF's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
MUB vs. NYF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB) and iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF). 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.
Dividends
MUB vs. NYF - Dividend Comparison
MUB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.95%, more than NYF's 2.72% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUB iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF | 2.95% | 2.65% | 2.11% | 1.81% | 2.11% | 2.42% | 2.46% | 2.26% | 2.21% | 2.51% | 2.73% | 3.02% |
NYF iShares New York Muni Bond ETF | 2.72% | 2.36% | 2.04% | 1.84% | 1.97% | 2.19% | 2.48% | 2.46% | 2.43% | 2.60% | 2.81% | 3.05% |
Drawdowns
MUB vs. NYF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUB drawdown since its inception was -13.68%, roughly equal to the maximum NYF drawdown of -13.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUB and NYF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
MUB vs. NYF - Volatility Comparison
iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB) has a higher volatility of 1.95% compared to iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF) at 1.78%. This indicates that MUB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NYF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.