MUND vs. GUMI
MUND (Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF) and GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUND charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for GUMI.
Performance
MUND vs. GUMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MUND achieves a 1.28% return, which is significantly higher than GUMI's 1.13% return.
MUND
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.18%
- YTD
- 1.28%
- 6M
- 1.54%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GUMI
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- YTD
- 1.13%
- 6M
- 1.37%
- 1Y
- 3.22%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MUND vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 1.28% | 4.34% |
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF | 1.13% | 1.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUND and GUMI is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2025 | 0.11 |
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
MUND vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank
MUND
GUMI
MUND vs. GUMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF (MUND) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MUND | GUMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.85 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.99 | 3.32 | -2.33 |
Drawdowns
MUND vs. GUMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUND drawdown since its inception was -4.19%, which is greater than GUMI's maximum drawdown of -0.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUND and GUMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUND | GUMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.19% | -0.48% | -3.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -0.36% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.96% | 0.00% | -1.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.88% | -0.05% | -1.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.08% | — |
Volatility
MUND vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUND | GUMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.25% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 0.55% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.29% | 1.09% | +6.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.29% | 0.99% | +6.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.29% | 0.99% | +6.30% |
MUND vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUND has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than GUMI's 0.16% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
MUND vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison
MUND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.81%, more than GUMI's 2.77% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF | 2.77% | 2.95% | 1.37% |
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 2.81% | 1.32% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MUND and GUMI have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for MUND.
MUND has the higher dividend yield at 2.81%, compared with 2.77% for GUMI.
They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for MUND and 0.16% for GUMI.
Find the right allocation for MUND and GUMI
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