NMS vs. NAC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NMS (Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund) and NAC (Nuveen California Quality Municipal Income Fund) are both Municipal Bonds funds from Nuveen. Over the past 10 years, NMS returned 1.67%/yr vs 1.99%/yr for NAC. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NMS charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for NAC.

Performance

NMS vs. NAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) and Nuveen California Quality Municipal Income Fund (NAC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMS achieves a 5.79% return, which is significantly higher than NAC's 5.24% return. Over the past 10 years, NMS has underperformed NAC with an annualized return of 1.67%, while NAC has yielded a comparatively higher 1.99% annualized return.

NMS

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: -0.73%
• YTD: 5.79%
• 6M: 4.72%
• 1Y: 13.07%
• 3Y*: 9.13%
• 5Y*: -0.86%
• 10Y*: 1.67%

NAC

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 2.55%
• YTD: 5.24%
• 6M: 5.69%
• 1Y: 16.95%
• 3Y*: 10.70%
• 5Y*: 0.45%
• 10Y*: 1.99%

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

NMS vs. NAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund	5.79%	2.10%	19.59%	1.57%	-21.89%	5.47%	5.80%	25.72%	-13.31%	-1.58%
NAC Nuveen California Quality Municipal Income Fund	5.24%	13.09%	8.67%	4.47%	-25.66%	7.62%	6.29%	22.27%	-6.23%	6.79%

Correlation

The correlation between NMS and NAC is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2014	0.25

The correlation between NMS and NAC shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.36 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NMS vs. NAC — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMS

NMS Risk / Return Rank: 53
NMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
NMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
NMS Omega Ratio Rank: 36
NMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
NMS Martin Ratio Rank: 71

NAC

NAC Risk / Return Rank: 73
NAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
NAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
NAC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
NAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
NAC Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

NMS vs. NAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) and Nuveen California Quality Municipal Income Fund (NAC). 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.

	NMS	NAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	2.21	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	3.39	-1.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.42	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.62	3.43	+1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.67	12.61	+0.06

NMS vs. NAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the NAC Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMS and NAC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

NMS vs. NAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMS drawdown since its inception was -38.76%, smaller than the maximum NAC drawdown of -46.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMS and NAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMS	NAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.76%	-46.41%	+7.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.84%	-4.96%	+2.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.28%	-13.60%	-3.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.76%	-36.31%	-2.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.76%	-36.31%	-2.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.06%	-1.27%	-3.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.68%	-8.39%	-2.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	1.35%	-0.31%

Volatility

NMS vs. NAC - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) has a higher volatility of 3.02% compared to Nuveen California Quality Municipal Income Fund (NAC) at 2.19%. This indicates that NMS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMS	NAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.02%	2.19%	+0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	5.58%	+0.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.48%	7.71%	+0.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.46%	10.76%	+2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.53%	12.23%	+2.30%

NMS vs. NAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

NMS has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than NAC's 0.04% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

NMS vs. NAC - Dividend Comparison

NMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.74%, less than NAC's 7.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NAC Nuveen California Quality Municipal Income Fund	7.33%	7.47%	6.63%	4.03%	5.47%	4.18%	4.17%	4.38%	5.34%	5.54%	6.25%	6.05%
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund	6.74%	7.29%	6.05%	4.03%	5.24%	4.19%	3.93%	4.05%	5.52%	5.20%	4.68%	5.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMS and NAC in my portfolio?

NMS and NAC have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NMS or NAC?

NMS has higher volatility (3.02%) compared to NAC (2.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMS dropped -38.76% vs NAC's -46.41%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.55), 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.