NCA vs. NMS
Compare and contrast key facts about Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund (NCA) and Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS).
NCA is managed by Nuveen. It was launched on Oct 7, 1987. NMS is managed by Nuveen. It was launched on Jun 25, 1993.
Performance
NCA vs. NMS - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
NCA vs. NMS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NCA Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund | 5.80% | 10.27% | -1.92% | 10.39% | -13.57% | -3.51% | 4.62% | 21.08% | -7.38% | 2.94% |
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund | 5.76% | 2.10% | 19.59% | 1.57% | -21.89% | 5.47% | 5.80% | 25.72% | -13.31% | -1.58% |
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with NCA having a 5.80% return and NMS slightly lower at 5.76%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with NCA having a 2.21% annualized return and NMS not far behind at 2.13%.
NCA
- 1D
- 1.41%
- 1M
- -2.18%
- YTD
- 5.80%
- 6M
- 7.44%
- 1Y
- 12.81%
- 3Y*
- 6.25%
- 5Y*
- 2.03%
- 10Y*
- 2.21%
NMS
- 1D
- 1.12%
- 1M
- 0.47%
- YTD
- 5.76%
- 6M
- 5.82%
- 1Y
- 9.04%
- 3Y*
- 6.52%
- 5Y*
- 1.26%
- 10Y*
- 2.13%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
NCA vs. NMS - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both NCA and NMS have an expense ratio of 0.03%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Return for Risk
NCA vs. NMS — Risk / Return Rank
NCA
NMS
NCA vs. NMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund (NCA) and Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS). 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.
| NCA | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.02 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.59 | 1.44 | +0.15 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.20 | 0.00 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.73 | 1.78 | -0.05 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.39 | 3.74 | +1.65 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| NCA | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.02 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.17 | 0.09 | +0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.18 | 0.15 | +0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.25 | 0.22 | +0.03 |
Correlation
The correlation between NCA and NMS is 0.17, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
NCA vs. NMS - Dividend Comparison
NCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.72%, less than NMS's 6.83% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NCA Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund | 3.72% | 3.89% | 4.12% | 3.88% | 3.66% | 3.02% | 2.98% | 3.21% | 3.79% | 5.33% | 4.36% | 4.34% |
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund | 6.83% | 7.29% | 6.05% | 4.03% | 5.24% | 4.19% | 3.93% | 4.05% | 5.52% | 5.20% | 4.68% | 5.60% |
Drawdowns
NCA vs. NMS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NCA drawdown since its inception was -37.14%, roughly equal to the maximum NMS drawdown of -38.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NCA and NMS.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| NCA | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.14% | -38.76% | +1.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.55% | -5.07% | -2.48% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.97% | -38.76% | +15.79% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.97% | -38.76% | +15.79% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.79% | -5.09% | +2.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.12% | -10.81% | +2.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.42% | 2.41% | +0.01% |
Volatility
NCA vs. NMS - Volatility Comparison
Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund (NCA) has a higher volatility of 6.30% compared to Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) at 2.88%. This indicates that NCA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| NCA | NMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.30% | 2.88% | +3.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.42% | 5.95% | +4.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.65% | 8.95% | +3.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.09% | 14.10% | -2.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.38% | 14.63% | -2.25% |