MUC vs. FGNSX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MUC (BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund) and FGNSX (Strategic Advisers Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Over the past 5 years, MUC returned -2.59%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for FGNSX. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUC charges 2.14%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for FGNSX.

Performance

MUC vs. FGNSX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and Strategic Advisers Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund (FGNSX). 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 higher than FGNSX's 0.67% 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%

FGNSX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 0.67%
• 6M: 0.94%
• 1Y: 2.58%
• 3Y*: 3.21%
• 5Y*: 2.07%
• 10Y*: —

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

MUC vs. FGNSX - 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%	-0.35%
FGNSX Strategic Advisers Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund	0.67%	3.08%	3.47%	3.56%	-0.36%	0.14%	1.04%	2.11%	1.47%	-0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between MUC and FGNSX is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 29, 2017	0.21

The correlation between MUC and FGNSX shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (1 year) to 0.25 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MUC vs. FGNSX — 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

FGNSX

FGNSX Risk / Return Rank: 62
FGNSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
FGNSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
FGNSX Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FGNSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
FGNSX Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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. FGNSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) and Strategic Advisers Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund (FGNSX). 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	FGNSX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	3.00	-1.66
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	7.47	-5.35
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	2.83	-1.57
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	1.18	+0.47
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.69	3.02	+3.67
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. FGNSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the FGNSX Sharpe Ratio of 3.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUC and FGNSX, 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	FGNSX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	3.00	-1.66
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.23	1.05	-1.27
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.07	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	1.10	-0.81

Drawdowns

MUC vs. FGNSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUC drawdown since its inception was -48.97%, which is greater than FGNSX's maximum drawdown of -2.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUC and FGNSX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUC	FGNSX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.97%	-2.35%	-46.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.53%	-0.50%	-6.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.51%	-2.35%	-12.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.29%	-2.35%	-35.94%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.35%	0.00%	-16.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.90%	-0.25%	-9.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	0.92%	+0.68%

Volatility

MUC vs. FGNSX - Volatility Comparison

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) has a higher volatility of 2.41% compared to Strategic Advisers Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund (FGNSX) at 0.40%. This indicates that MUC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FGNSX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MUC	FGNSX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.41%	0.40%	+2.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.28%	0.69%	+5.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.05%	1.02%	+7.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.50%	2.06%	+9.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.89%	1.65%	+10.24%

MUC vs. FGNSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUC has a 2.14% expense ratio, which is higher than FGNSX's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

MUC vs. FGNSX - Dividend Comparison

MUC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.96%, more than FGNSX's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FGNSX Strategic Advisers Tax-Sensitive Short Duration Fund	2.35%	2.63%	3.31%	2.57%	0.84%	0.34%	0.83%	1.79%	1.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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 FGNSX in my portfolio?

MUC and FGNSX have a correlation of 0.14, 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 FGNSX?

MUC has higher volatility (2.41%) compared to FGNSX (0.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUC dropped -48.97% vs FGNSX's -2.35%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGNSX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.00 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.