MUC vs. FASGX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MUC (BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund) and FASGX (Fidelity Asset Manager 70% Fund) are both mutual funds - MUC is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by BlackRock, while FASGX is a Diversified Portfolio fund managed by BlackRock. Over the past 10 years, MUC returned 0.80%/yr vs 9.96%/yr for FASGX. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUC charges 2.14%/yr vs 0.67%/yr for FASGX.

Performance

MUC vs. FASGX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and Fidelity Asset Manager 70% Fund (FASGX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUC achieves a 4.25% return, which is significantly lower than FASGX's 11.37% return. Over the past 10 years, MUC has underperformed FASGX with an annualized return of 0.80%, while FASGX has yielded a comparatively higher 9.96% 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%

FASGX

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 3.62%
• YTD: 11.37%
• 6M: 12.72%
• 1Y: 26.17%
• 3Y*: 16.27%
• 5Y*: 8.25%
• 10Y*: 9.96%

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

MUC vs. FASGX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
FASGX Fidelity Asset Manager 70% Fund	11.37%	18.23%	10.81%	16.45%	-16.83%	13.98%	17.19%	22.81%	-7.65%	17.34%

Correlation

The correlation between MUC and FASGX is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 1998	0.13

Over the past year, MUC and FASGX have become more correlated (0.35) than their long-term average of 0.13, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

MUC vs. FASGX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUC

MUC Risk / Return Rank: 24
MUC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
MUC Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
MUC Omega Ratio Rank: 24
MUC Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
MUC Martin Ratio Rank: 27

FASGX

FASGX Risk / Return Rank: 76
FASGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FASGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
FASGX Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FASGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
FASGX Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. FASGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and Fidelity Asset Manager 70% Fund (FASGX). 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.

	MUC	FASGX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	2.59	-1.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	3.62	-1.50
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.49	-0.23
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	3.34	-1.70
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.69	14.80	-8.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MUC vs. FASGX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the FASGX Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUC and FASGX, 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

	MUC	FASGX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	2.59	-1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.23	0.68	-0.90
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.07	0.79	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.63	-0.34

Drawdowns

MUC vs. FASGX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUC drawdown since its inception was -48.97%, roughly equal to the maximum FASGX drawdown of -47.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUC and FASGX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUC	FASGX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.97%	-47.35%	-1.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.53%	-7.95%	+1.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.51%	-12.80%	-1.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.29%	-23.54%	-14.75%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.29%	-27.20%	-11.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.35%	0.00%	-16.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.90%	-6.71%	-3.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	1.79%	-0.19%

Volatility

MUC vs. FASGX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) is 2.41%, while Fidelity Asset Manager 70% Fund (FASGX) has a volatility of 3.29%. This indicates that MUC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FASGX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MUC	FASGX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.41%	3.29%	-0.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.28%	8.38%	-2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.05%	10.35%	-2.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.50%	12.26%	-0.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.89%	12.65%	-0.76%

MUC vs. FASGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUC has a 2.14% expense ratio, which is higher than FASGX's 0.67% expense ratio.

Dividends

MUC vs. FASGX - Dividend Comparison

MUC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.96%, less than FASGX's 6.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FASGX Fidelity Asset Manager 70% Fund	6.59%	7.33%	4.60%	1.72%	6.69%	2.73%	2.20%	5.19%	6.31%	2.75%	0.20%	5.58%
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

Can I hold both MUC and FASGX in my portfolio?

MUC and FASGX have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MUC or FASGX?

FASGX has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to MUC (2.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUC dropped -48.97% vs FASGX's -47.35%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FASGX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 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.