MUC vs. CMF
MUC (BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund) and CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. MUC is actively managed, while CMF is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MUC returned 0.76%/yr vs 1.66%/yr for CMF. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUC charges 2.14%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for CMF.
Performance
MUC vs. CMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MUC achieves a 5.45% return, which is significantly higher than CMF's 1.28% return. Over the past 10 years, MUC has underperformed CMF with an annualized return of 0.76%, while CMF has yielded a comparatively higher 1.66% annualized return.
MUC
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 2.68%
- YTD
- 5.45%
- 6M
- 5.65%
- 1Y
- 12.41%
- 3Y*
- 5.81%
- 5Y*
- -2.31%
- 10Y*
- 0.76%
CMF
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 1.39%
- YTD
- 1.28%
- 6M
- 1.51%
- 1Y
- 6.61%
- 3Y*
- 3.14%
- 5Y*
- 0.75%
- 10Y*
- 1.66%
MUC vs. CMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUC BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund | 5.45% | 5.96% | 0.76% | 7.86% | -26.81% | 7.38% | 11.85% | 18.12% | -9.00% | 6.07% |
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 1.28% | 3.36% | 1.65% | 5.71% | -8.27% | 0.78% | 4.50% | 6.94% | 0.99% | 4.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUC and CMF is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2007 | 0.28 |
The correlation between MUC and CMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (all time) to 0.53 (5 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. CMF — Risk / Return Rank
MUC
CMF
MUC vs. CMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| MUC | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.88 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.05 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.54 | -0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.91 | 2.28 | -0.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.74 | 7.50 | +0.24 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MUC vs. CMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUC drawdown since its inception was -48.97%, which is greater than CMF's maximum drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUC and CMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUC | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.97% | -16.45% | -32.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.53% | -2.91% | -3.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.51% | -5.22% | -9.29% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.29% | -12.45% | -25.84% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.29% | -14.57% | -23.72% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.38% | -0.61% | -14.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.91% | -4.76% | -5.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.61% | 0.88% | +0.73% |
Volatility
MUC vs. CMF - Volatility Comparison
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) has a higher volatility of 2.18% compared to iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) at 0.71%. This indicates that MUC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUC | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.18% | 0.71% | +1.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.35% | 2.17% | +4.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.19% | 2.77% | +5.42% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.51% | 4.19% | +7.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.89% | 5.08% | +6.81% |
MUC vs. CMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUC has a 2.14% expense ratio, which is higher than CMF's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
MUC vs. CMF - Dividend Comparison
MUC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.92%, more than CMF's 2.94% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 2.94% | 2.94% | 2.78% | 2.29% | 1.91% | 1.58% | 1.80% | 2.03% | 2.17% | 2.09% | 2.21% | 2.55% |
MUC BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund | 5.92% | 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 CMF have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MUC has higher volatility (2.18%) compared to CMF (0.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUC dropped -48.97% vs CMF's -16.45%.
CMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 1.52), 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.
Find the right allocation for MUC and CMF
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