PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MUC vs. AFB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MUC vs. AFB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund (AFB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUC achieves a 4.25% return, which is significantly lower than AFB's 6.29% return. Over the past 10 years, MUC has underperformed AFB with an annualized return of 0.80%, while AFB has yielded a comparatively higher 1.61% annualized return.


MUC

1D
0.09%
1M
0.40%
YTD
4.25%
6M
4.67%
1Y
10.73%
3Y*
6.35%
5Y*
-2.59%
10Y*
0.80%

AFB

1D
0.27%
1M
1.99%
YTD
6.29%
6M
6.49%
1Y
15.11%
3Y*
7.32%
5Y*
-1.27%
10Y*
1.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MUC vs. AFB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MUC
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund
4.25%5.96%0.76%7.86%-26.81%7.38%11.85%18.12%-9.00%6.07%
AFB
AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund
6.29%4.41%4.10%7.41%-25.93%7.25%7.80%20.13%-5.43%6.15%

Correlation

The correlation between MUC and AFB is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.39

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.49

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.43

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2002

0.39

The correlation between MUC and AFB shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (all time) to 0.49 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

MUC vs. AFB — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUC
MUC Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
MUC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MUC Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
MUC Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
MUC Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
MUC Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

AFB
AFB Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
AFB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AFB Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
AFB Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
AFB Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
AFB Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

MUC vs. AFB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund (AFB). 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.


MUCAFBDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.34

1.93

-0.59

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.12

3.13

-1.01

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.37

-0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.64

2.43

-0.78

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

6.69

9.12

-2.43

MUC vs. AFB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the AFB Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUC and AFB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


MUCAFBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.34

1.93

-0.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.23

-0.12

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.07

0.14

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.29

0.33

-0.04

Drawdowns

MUC vs. AFB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUC drawdown since its inception was -48.97%, roughly equal to the maximum AFB drawdown of -50.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUC and AFB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MUCAFBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.97%

-50.98%

+2.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.53%

-5.96%

-0.57%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.51%

-16.32%

+1.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.29%

-35.17%

-3.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.29%

-35.17%

-3.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-16.35%

-9.49%

-6.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.90%

-8.98%

-0.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.60%

1.58%

+0.02%

Volatility

MUC vs. AFB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) is 2.41%, while AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund (AFB) has a volatility of 2.63%. This indicates that MUC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MUCAFBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.41%

2.63%

-0.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.28%

5.75%

+0.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.05%

7.91%

+0.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.50%

10.94%

+0.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.89%

11.24%

+0.65%

MUC vs. AFB - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUC has a 2.14% expense ratio, which is higher than AFB's 1.56% expense ratio.


Dividends

MUC vs. AFB - Dividend Comparison

MUC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.96%, more than AFB's 5.01% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AFB
AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund
5.01%4.72%3.83%3.62%5.26%4.32%4.18%3.93%4.53%4.71%5.34%5.80%
MUC
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund
5.96%6.06%5.62%3.84%5.79%4.27%3.96%3.90%4.99%5.14%5.45%5.46%

Frequently Asked Questions


MUC and AFB have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

AFB has higher volatility (2.63%) compared to MUC (2.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUC dropped -48.97% vs AFB's -50.98%.

AFB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.34), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MUC and AFB

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