MUND vs. GUMI

Last updated Jun 27, 2026

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

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF (MUND) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUND achieves a 1.81% return, which is significantly higher than GUMI's 1.33% return.

MUND

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 1.11%
• YTD: 1.81%
• 6M: 2.16%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GUMI

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.32%
• YTD: 1.33%
• 6M: 1.40%
• 1Y: 3.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MUND vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF	1.81%	4.41%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.33%	1.30%

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 19, 2025	0.11

Return for Risk

MUND vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUND

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 96
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 95
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

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.

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.

	MUND	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.93	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	4.79	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.65	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	8.76	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	37.91	—

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUND	GUMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.19%	-0.48%	-3.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.45%	0.00%	-1.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.87%	-0.05%	-1.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.08%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MUND	GUMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.17%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.50%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.08%	1.07%	+6.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.08%	0.97%	+6.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.08%	0.97%	+6.11%

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 2.79%, more than GUMI's 2.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.76%	2.95%	1.37%
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF	2.79%	1.32%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MUND and GUMI in my portfolio?

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.

Which ETF is better, MUND or GUMI?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, MUND or GUMI?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for MUND.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MUND or GUMI?

MUND has the higher dividend yield at 2.79%, compared with 2.76% for GUMI.

What is the main difference between MUND and 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.