NEA vs. NZF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NEA (Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund) is a stock, while NZF (Nuveen Municipal Credit Income Fund) is Municipal Bonds fund tracking the S&P National Municipal Bond Index. Over the past 10 years, NEA returned 2.97%/yr vs 3.56%/yr for NZF. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NEA charges 1.41%/yr vs 1.89%/yr for NZF.

Performance

NEA vs. NZF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) and Nuveen Municipal Credit Income Fund (NZF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NEA achieves a 1.73% return, which is significantly lower than NZF's 2.37% return. Over the past 10 years, NEA has underperformed NZF with an annualized return of 2.97%, while NZF has yielded a comparatively higher 3.56% annualized return.

NEA

• 1D: -0.61%
• 1M: 3.38%
• YTD: 1.73%
• 6M: 2.95%
• 1Y: 14.66%
• 3Y*: 9.40%
• 5Y*: -0.08%
• 10Y*: 2.97%

NZF

• 1D: -0.87%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 2.37%
• 6M: 1.64%
• 1Y: 14.20%
• 3Y*: 10.44%
• 5Y*: -0.15%
• 10Y*: 3.56%

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

NEA vs. NZF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NEA Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund	1.73%	11.31%	9.50%	0.75%	-23.32%	8.16%	10.07%	22.42%	-5.72%	8.77%
NZF Nuveen Municipal Credit Income Fund	2.37%	11.78%	10.09%	2.49%	-25.53%	11.19%	3.58%	28.33%	-6.79%	14.48%

Correlation

The correlation between NEA and NZF is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 25, 2002	0.49

Over the past year, NEA and NZF have become more correlated (0.70) than their long-term average of 0.49, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

NEA vs. NZF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NEA

NEA Risk / Return Rank: 78
NEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
NEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
NEA Omega Ratio Rank: 76
NEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
NEA Martin Ratio Rank: 83

NZF

NZF Risk / Return Rank: 26
NZF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
NZF Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
NZF Omega Ratio Rank: 25
NZF Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
NZF Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

NEA vs. NZF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) and Nuveen Municipal Credit Income Fund (NZF). 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.

	NEA	NZF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	1.38	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	2.18	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.26	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	1.76	+0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.11	7.24	+0.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NEA vs. NZF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NEA Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is comparable to the NZF Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NEA and NZF, 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

	NEA	NZF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	1.38	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.01	-0.01	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.25	0.27	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.37	-0.06

Drawdowns

NEA vs. NZF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NEA drawdown since its inception was -43.83%, smaller than the maximum NZF drawdown of -48.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEA and NZF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NEA	NZF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.83%	-48.55%	+4.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.27%	-8.11%	+0.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.16%	-15.59%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.57%	-37.42%	+0.85%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.57%	-37.42%	+0.85%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.41%	-4.72%	-0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.01%	-7.77%	-0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	1.97%	-0.16%

Volatility

NEA vs. NZF - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) has a higher volatility of 3.80% compared to Nuveen Municipal Credit Income Fund (NZF) at 3.51%. This indicates that NEA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NZF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NEA	NZF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.80%	3.51%	+0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.50%	8.14%	+0.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.59%	10.34%	+0.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.49%	12.37%	-0.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.81%	13.10%	-1.29%

NEA vs. NZF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NEA has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is lower than NZF's 1.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

NEA vs. NZF - Dividend Comparison

NEA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.23%, less than NZF's 7.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NEA Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund	7.23%	7.36%	6.63%	3.95%	5.49%	4.50%	4.45%	4.46%	5.40%	5.33%	5.70%	5.71%
NZF Nuveen Municipal Credit Income Fund	7.64%	7.58%	6.84%	4.51%	5.80%	4.63%	4.74%	4.82%	6.05%	5.86%	6.26%	5.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NEA and NZF in my portfolio?

NEA and NZF have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NEA or NZF?

NEA has higher volatility (3.80%) compared to NZF (3.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NEA dropped -43.83% vs NZF's -48.55%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NEA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 1.38), 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.