PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NBMAX vs. MUC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NBMAX vs. MUC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (NBMAX) and BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBMAX achieves a 1.87% return, which is significantly lower than MUC's 5.45% return. Over the past 10 years, NBMAX has outperformed MUC with an annualized return of 1.68%, while MUC has yielded a comparatively lower 0.76% annualized return.


NBMAX

1D
0.11%
1M
1.51%
YTD
1.87%
6M
2.29%
1Y
6.87%
3Y*
3.14%
5Y*
0.03%
10Y*
1.68%

MUC

1D
0.09%
1M
2.68%
YTD
5.45%
6M
5.65%
1Y
12.41%
3Y*
5.81%
5Y*
-2.31%
10Y*
0.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NBMAX vs. MUC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
NBMAX
Nuveen Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund
1.87%2.55%1.95%5.62%-11.47%2.18%4.95%7.88%0.06%5.51%
MUC
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund
5.45%5.96%0.76%7.86%-26.81%7.38%11.85%18.12%-9.00%6.07%

Correlation

The correlation between NBMAX and MUC is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.44

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

0.48

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

0.47

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.39

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 1998

0.27

The correlation between NBMAX and MUC shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (all time) to 0.48 (3 years), 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

NBMAX vs. MUC — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBMAX
NBMAX Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
NBMAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NBMAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
NBMAX Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
NBMAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
NBMAX Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank

MUC
MUC Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
MUC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MUC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
MUC Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
MUC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
MUC Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
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.

NBMAX vs. MUC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (NBMAX) and BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC). 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.


NBMAXMUCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.71

1.29

+0.41

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.21

1.91

+1.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.41

7.74

+2.67

NBMAX vs. MUC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBMAX Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is higher than the MUC Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBMAX and MUC, 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

NBMAX vs. MUC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBMAX drawdown since its inception was -21.96%, smaller than the maximum MUC drawdown of -48.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBMAX and MUC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NBMAXMUCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.96%

-48.97%

+27.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.16%

-6.53%

+4.37%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.83%

-14.51%

+8.68%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.62%

-38.29%

+22.67%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-15.62%

-38.29%

+22.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.78%

-15.38%

+14.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.81%

-9.91%

+7.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.66%

1.61%

-0.95%

Volatility

NBMAX vs. MUC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Nuveen Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (NBMAX) is 0.61%, while BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund (MUC) has a volatility of 2.18%. This indicates that NBMAX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MUC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NBMAXMUCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.61%

2.18%

-1.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.76%

6.35%

-4.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.54%

8.19%

-5.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

3.93%

11.51%

-7.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.20%

11.89%

-7.69%

NBMAX vs. MUC - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBMAX has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is lower than MUC's 2.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

NBMAX vs. MUC - Dividend Comparison

NBMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.28%, less than MUC's 5.92% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MUC
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund
5.92%6.06%5.62%3.84%5.79%4.27%3.96%3.90%4.99%5.14%5.45%5.46%
NBMAX
Nuveen Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund
3.28%3.56%3.34%2.92%2.39%1.96%2.49%3.09%3.15%3.04%3.37%3.64%

Frequently Asked Questions


NBMAX and MUC have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MUC has higher volatility (2.18%) compared to NBMAX (0.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBMAX dropped -21.96% vs MUC's -48.97%.

NBMAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 1.52), 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 NBMAX and MUC

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