PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MUST vs. REVS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MUST vs. REVS - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUST achieves a 1.58% return, which is significantly lower than REVS's 15.41% return.


MUST

1D
-0.19%
1M
0.37%
6M
0.22%
YTD
1.58%
1Y
5.82%
3Y*
3.37%
5Y*
0.68%
10Y*

REVS

1D
0.59%
1M
2.13%
6M
12.25%
YTD
15.41%
1Y
25.42%
3Y*
18.18%
5Y*
12.24%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MUST vs. REVS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
MUST
Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF
1.58%4.92%0.37%6.23%-8.82%1.93%6.67%0.40%
REVS
Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF
15.41%16.80%16.36%13.46%-6.20%28.52%1.37%7.27%

Correlation

The correlation between MUST and REVS is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.21

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.16

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.11

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2019

0.09

The correlation between MUST and REVS shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (all time) to 0.21 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

MUST vs. REVS — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUST
MUST Risk / Return Rank: 4343
Overall Rank
MUST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MUST Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
MUST Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
MUST Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
MUST Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank

REVS
REVS Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
REVS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
REVS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
REVS Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
REVS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
REVS Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank
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. REVS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) and Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF (REVS). 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.


MUSTREVSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.38

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

3.68

-1.74

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.25

13.37

-8.12

MUST vs. REVS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUST Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the REVS Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUST and REVS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

MUST vs. REVS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUST drawdown since its inception was -13.83%, smaller than the maximum REVS drawdown of -37.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUST and REVS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MUSTREVSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.83%

-37.85%

+24.02%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.01%

-6.94%

+3.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.08%

-16.37%

+10.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-13.83%

-18.04%

+4.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.96%

0.00%

-0.96%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.37%

-4.60%

+1.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.12%

1.91%

-0.79%

Volatility

MUST vs. REVS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) is 1.42%, while Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF (REVS) has a volatility of 3.19%. This indicates that MUST experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than REVS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MUSTREVSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.42%

3.19%

-1.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.72%

8.43%

-4.71%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.03%

11.56%

-6.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.46%

14.87%

-9.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.58%

19.03%

-13.45%

MUST vs. REVS - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUST has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than REVS's 0.19% 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

MUST vs. REVS - Dividend Comparison

MUST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.34%, more than REVS's 1.84% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
MUST
Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF
3.34%3.28%3.13%2.51%1.76%1.62%2.33%2.70%0.55%
REVS
Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF
1.84%2.13%1.89%2.49%2.46%1.18%27.75%0.70%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


MUST and REVS have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

REVS has higher volatility (3.19%) compared to MUST (1.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUST dropped -13.83% vs REVS's -37.85%.

On 5-year performance, REVS leads with 12.24% vs 0.68% for MUST. On fees, REVS is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, MUST has been the lower-risk option at 1.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, REVS has performed better with a 12.24% return vs 0.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

REVS is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for MUST.

MUST has the higher dividend yield at 3.34%, compared with 1.84% for REVS.

MUST is categorized as Money Market, while REVS is Large Cap Value Equities. MUST tracks Bloomberg Beta Advantage Multi-Sector Municipal Bond Index, while REVS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Value Index. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for MUST and 0.19% for REVS.

REVS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.16), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MUST and REVS

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