MUND vs. SKOR
MUND (Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF) and SKOR (FlexShares Credit-Scored US Corporate Bond Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - MUND is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Northern Trust, while SKOR is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the NorthernTrustUS Corporate Bond Quality Value Index. MUND is actively managed, while SKOR is passively managed. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUND charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for SKOR.
Performance
MUND vs. SKOR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MUND achieves a 1.22% return, which is significantly higher than SKOR's 0.48% return.
MUND
- 1D
- -0.24%
- 1M
- -0.36%
- 6M
- 0.66%
- YTD
- 1.22%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SKOR
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- -0.19%
- 6M
- 0.34%
- YTD
- 0.48%
- 1Y
- 4.32%
- 3Y*
- 5.80%
- 5Y*
- 1.68%
- 10Y*
- 2.81%
MUND vs. SKOR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 1.22% | 4.41% |
SKOR FlexShares Credit-Scored US Corporate Bond Index Fund | 0.48% | 2.55% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUND and SKOR is 0.41, 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 | 0.41 |
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. SKOR — Risk / Return Rank
MUND
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
SKOR
MUND vs. SKOR - 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 FlexShares Credit-Scored US Corporate Bond Index Fund (SKOR). 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 | SKOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.29 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.08 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.01 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MUND vs. SKOR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUND drawdown since its inception was -4.19%, smaller than the maximum SKOR drawdown of -15.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUND and SKOR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUND | SKOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.19% | -15.98% | +11.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -2.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -3.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -15.13% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -15.98% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.02% | -0.63% | -1.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.85% | -2.63% | +0.78% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.62% | — |
Volatility
MUND vs. SKOR - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUND | SKOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.80% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 2.14% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.90% | 2.72% | +4.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.90% | 4.44% | +2.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.90% | 4.90% | +2.00% |
MUND vs. SKOR - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUND has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than SKOR's 0.22% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. SKOR - Dividend Comparison
MUND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.22%, less than SKOR's 4.69% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 3.22% | 1.32% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SKOR FlexShares Credit-Scored US Corporate Bond Index Fund | 4.69% | 4.70% | 4.90% | 3.90% | 2.57% | 2.55% | 3.38% | 3.53% | 2.85% | 2.46% | 2.74% | 2.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MUND and SKOR have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MUND is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MUND is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for SKOR.
SKOR has the higher dividend yield at 4.69%, compared with 3.22% for MUND.
MUND is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while SKOR is Corporate Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for MUND and 0.22% for SKOR.
Find the right allocation for MUND and SKOR
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