MUST vs. LSAT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MUST (Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF) and LSAT (Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF) are both Money Market funds. MUST is passively managed, while LSAT is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MUST returned 0.87%/yr vs 5.78%/yr for LSAT. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUST charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for LSAT.

Performance

MUST vs. LSAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) and Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUST achieves a 1.60% return, which is significantly lower than LSAT's 10.11% return.

MUST

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 6M: 1.55%
• 1Y: 7.14%
• 3Y*: 3.82%
• 5Y*: 0.87%
• 10Y*: —

LSAT

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: 2.09%
• YTD: 10.11%
• 6M: 8.58%
• 1Y: 10.20%
• 3Y*: 11.66%
• 5Y*: 5.78%
• 10Y*: —

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

MUST vs. LSAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF	1.60%	4.92%	0.37%	6.23%	-8.82%	1.93%	3.23%
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF	10.11%	-1.54%	18.16%	13.64%	-12.99%	25.10%	20.47%

Correlation

The correlation between MUST and LSAT is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2020	0.10

The correlation between MUST and LSAT shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (5 years) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MUST vs. LSAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUST

MUST Risk / Return Rank: 41
MUST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
MUST Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
MUST Omega Ratio Rank: 40
MUST Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
MUST Martin Ratio Rank: 41

LSAT

LSAT Risk / Return Rank: 24
LSAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
LSAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
LSAT Omega Ratio Rank: 22
LSAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
LSAT Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

MUST vs. LSAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) and Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT). 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.

	MUST	LSAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	0.81	+0.58
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	1.27	+0.74
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.15	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	1.29	+1.09
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.52	3.03	+3.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MUST vs. LSAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUST Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is higher than the LSAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUST and LSAT, 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

	MUST	LSAT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	0.81	+0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16	0.36	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.73	-0.19

Drawdowns

MUST vs. LSAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUST drawdown since its inception was -13.83%, smaller than the maximum LSAT drawdown of -20.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUST and LSAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUST	LSAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.83%	-20.48%	+6.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.01%	-7.94%	+4.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.08%	-18.25%	+12.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.83%	-20.48%	+6.65%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.94%	-0.59%	-0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.41%	-5.55%	+2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.10%	3.37%	-2.27%

Volatility

MUST vs. LSAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) is 1.80%, while Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) has a volatility of 3.26%. This indicates that MUST experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LSAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MUST	LSAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.80%	3.26%	-1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.60%	9.11%	-5.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.17%	12.59%	-7.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.44%	16.25%	-10.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.59%	16.76%	-11.17%

MUST vs. LSAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUST has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than LSAT's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

MUST vs. LSAT - Dividend Comparison

MUST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, more than LSAT's 1.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF	1.72%	1.90%	1.31%	1.85%	0.36%	3.44%	0.30%	0.00%	0.00%
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF	3.32%	3.28%	3.13%	2.51%	1.76%	1.62%	2.33%	2.70%	0.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MUST and LSAT in my portfolio?

MUST and LSAT have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MUST or LSAT?

LSAT has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to MUST (1.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUST dropped -13.83% vs LSAT's -20.48%.

Which ETF is better, MUST or LSAT?

On 5-year performance, LSAT leads with 5.78% vs 0.87% for MUST. On fees, MUST is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, MUST has been the lower-risk option at 1.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MUST or LSAT?

Over the 5-year period, LSAT has performed better with a 5.78% return vs 0.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MUST or LSAT?

MUST is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LSAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MUST or LSAT?

MUST has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 1.72% for LSAT.

What is the main difference between MUST and LSAT?

They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and Redwood. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for MUST and 0.99% for LSAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MUST currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.81), 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.