MUSQ vs. CEFS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MUSQ (MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MUSQ is a Communications Equities fund tracking the MUSQ Global Music Industry Index, while CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. MUSQ is passively managed, while CEFS is actively managed. Over the past year, MUSQ returned -4.15% vs 25.00% for CEFS. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MUSQ charges 0.76%/yr vs 1.29%/yr for CEFS.

Performance

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUSQ achieves a -8.93% return, which is significantly lower than CEFS's 13.75% return.

MUSQ

• 1D: -2.16%
• 1M: 1.10%
• YTD: -8.93%
• 6M: -6.37%
• 1Y: -4.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEFS

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: 4.35%
• YTD: 13.75%
• 6M: 15.64%
• 1Y: 25.00%
• 3Y*: 22.04%
• 5Y*: 13.85%
• 10Y*: —

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

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	-8.93%	19.60%	-4.94%	1.76%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	13.75%	16.67%	23.48%	8.04%

Correlation

The correlation between MUSQ and CEFS is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2023	0.53

The correlation between MUSQ and CEFS shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.53 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MUSQ	CEFS
Communication Services	76.9%	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	12.1%	3.3%
Technology	10.3%	12.4%
Industrials	0.7%	6.7%
Basic Materials	-	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.8%
Energy	-	11.2%
Financial Services	-	48.9%
Healthcare	-	4.6%
Real Estate	-	1.2%
Utilities	-	4.2%

Return for Risk

MUSQ vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUSQ

MUSQ Risk / Return Rank: 7
MUSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
MUSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
MUSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
MUSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
MUSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 7

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 80
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.

	MUSQ	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.25	2.53	-2.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.24	3.71	-3.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.48	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.18	4.43	-4.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	17.26	-17.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUSQ Sharpe Ratio is -0.25, which is lower than the CEFS Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUSQ and CEFS, 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

	MUSQ	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.25	2.53	-2.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.10	0.79	-0.69

Drawdowns

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUSQ drawdown since its inception was -23.11%, smaller than the maximum CEFS drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUSQ and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUSQ	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.11%	-38.99%	+15.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.11%	-5.67%	-17.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.04%	-0.51%	-14.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.58%	-3.67%	-2.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.43%	1.45%	+7.98%

Volatility

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison

MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) has a higher volatility of 4.86% compared to Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) at 3.37%. This indicates that MUSQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MUSQ	CEFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.86%	3.37%	+1.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.18%	8.56%	+4.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.81%	9.95%	+6.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.86%	13.08%	+4.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.86%	15.33%	+2.53%

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUSQ has a 0.76% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 1.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

MUSQ vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

MUSQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.69%, less than CEFS's 7.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	7.10%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	0.69%	0.63%	1.08%	0.74%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MUSQ and CEFS in my portfolio?

MUSQ and CEFS have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MUSQ or CEFS?

MUSQ has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to CEFS (3.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUSQ dropped -23.11% vs CEFS's -38.99%.

Which ETF is better, MUSQ or CEFS?

On 1-year performance, CEFS leads with 25.00% vs -4.15% for MUSQ. On fees, MUSQ is cheaper at 0.76% per year. On volatility, CEFS has been the lower-risk option at 3.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MUSQ or CEFS?

Over the 1-year period, CEFS has performed better with a 25.00% return vs -4.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MUSQ or CEFS?

MUSQ is cheaper with a 0.76% expense ratio, compared with 1.29% for CEFS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MUSQ or CEFS?

CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.10%, compared with 0.69% for MUSQ.

What is the main difference between MUSQ and CEFS?

MUSQ is categorized as Communications Equities, while CEFS is Event Driven. Their fees differ too: 0.76% for MUSQ and 1.29% for CEFS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs -0.25), 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.