MUST vs. XCEM
MUST (Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF) and XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MUST is a Money Market fund tracking the Bloomberg Beta Advantage Multi-Sector Municipal Bond Index, while XCEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MUST returned 0.87%/yr vs 11.95%/yr for XCEM. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUST charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for XCEM.
Performance
MUST vs. XCEM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MUST achieves a 1.60% return, which is significantly lower than XCEM's 38.32% return.
MUST
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- 1.08%
- YTD
- 1.60%
- 6M
- 1.55%
- 1Y
- 7.14%
- 3Y*
- 3.82%
- 5Y*
- 0.87%
- 10Y*
- —
XCEM
- 1D
- -1.25%
- 1M
- 12.13%
- YTD
- 38.32%
- 6M
- 44.13%
- 1Y
- 71.14%
- 3Y*
- 26.37%
- 5Y*
- 11.95%
- 10Y*
- 12.99%
MUST vs. XCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF | 1.60% | 4.92% | 0.37% | 6.23% | -8.82% | 1.93% | 6.67% | 8.35% | 2.72% |
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 38.32% | 34.05% | 0.42% | 19.96% | -17.59% | 7.87% | 9.47% | 19.74% | -2.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUST and XCEM is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2018 | 0.10 |
The correlation between MUST and XCEM shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (all time) to 0.22 (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. XCEM — Risk / Return Rank
MUST
XCEM
MUST vs. XCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). 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 | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.03 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.61 | -0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.38 | 4.95 | -2.57 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.52 | 19.98 | -13.46 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MUST | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.39 | 3.42 | -2.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 | 0.68 | -0.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.66 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.54 | 0.63 | -0.09 |
Drawdowns
MUST vs. XCEM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUST drawdown since its inception was -13.83%, smaller than the maximum XCEM drawdown of -41.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUST and XCEM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUST | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.83% | -41.24% | +27.41% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.01% | -14.46% | +11.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.08% | -18.92% | +12.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.83% | -29.67% | +15.84% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.24% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.94% | -1.25% | +0.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.41% | -8.59% | +5.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.10% | 3.57% | -2.47% |
Volatility
MUST vs. XCEM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) is 1.80%, while Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a volatility of 9.43%. This indicates that MUST experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XCEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUST | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.80% | 9.43% | -7.63% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.60% | 18.72% | -15.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.17% | 20.89% | -15.72% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.44% | 17.75% | -12.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.59% | 19.72% | -14.13% |
MUST vs. XCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUST has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than XCEM'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
MUST vs. XCEM - Dividend Comparison
MUST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, more than XCEM's 2.35% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 2.35% | 3.25% | 2.76% | 1.22% | 2.42% | 1.94% | 1.63% | 2.11% | 2.70% | 9.56% | 1.24% | 2.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MUST and XCEM have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XCEM has higher volatility (9.43%) compared to MUST (1.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUST dropped -13.83% vs XCEM's -41.24%.
On 5-year performance, XCEM leads with 11.95% vs 0.87% for MUST. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% 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.
Over the 5-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 11.95% return vs 0.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for MUST.
MUST has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 2.35% for XCEM.
MUST is categorized as Money Market, while XCEM is Emerging Markets Equities. MUST tracks Bloomberg Beta Advantage Multi-Sector Municipal Bond Index, while XCEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for MUST and 0.16% for XCEM.
XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 1.39), 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.
Find the right allocation for MUST and XCEM
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