NMS vs. NCA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NMS (Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund) and NCA (Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund) are both Municipal Bonds funds from Nuveen. Over the past 10 years, NMS returned 1.96%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for NCA. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.03% expense ratio.

Performance

NMS vs. NCA - 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 Municipal Value Fund (NCA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMS achieves a 7.18% return, which is significantly higher than NCA's 4.88% return. Over the past 10 years, NMS has underperformed NCA with an annualized return of 1.96%, while NCA has yielded a comparatively higher 2.07% annualized return.

NMS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 7.18%
• 6M: 5.79%
• 1Y: 15.29%
• 3Y*: 9.85%
• 5Y*: -0.38%
• 10Y*: 1.96%

NCA

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 4.88%
• 6M: 5.58%
• 1Y: 13.56%
• 3Y*: 6.12%
• 5Y*: 1.28%
• 10Y*: 2.07%

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

NMS vs. NCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund	7.18%	2.10%	19.59%	1.57%	-21.89%	5.47%	5.80%	25.72%	-13.31%	-1.58%
NCA Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund	4.88%	10.27%	-1.92%	10.39%	-13.57%	-3.51%	4.62%	21.08%	-7.38%	2.94%

Correlation

The correlation between NMS and NCA 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	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2014	0.17

The correlation between NMS and NCA shifts across timeframes, from 0.17 (all time) to 0.29 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NMS vs. NCA — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMS

NMS Risk / Return Rank: 62
NMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
NMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
NMS Omega Ratio Rank: 46
NMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
NMS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

NCA

NCA Risk / Return Rank: 18
NCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
NCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
NCA Omega Ratio Rank: 16
NCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
NCA Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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. NCA - 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 Municipal Value Fund (NCA). 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.

	NMS	NCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	1.06	+0.85
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	1.63	+1.23
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.21	+0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.31	1.85	+3.46
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.23	5.91	+9.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NMS vs. NCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is higher than the NCA Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMS and NCA, 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

	NMS	NCA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	1.06	+0.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03	0.10	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.13	0.17	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	0.25	-0.02

Drawdowns

NMS vs. NCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMS drawdown since its inception was -38.76%, roughly equal to the maximum NCA drawdown of -37.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMS and NCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMS	NCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.76%	-37.14%	-1.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.84%	-7.55%	+4.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.28%	-10.63%	-6.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.76%	-22.97%	-15.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.76%	-22.97%	-15.79%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.81%	-4.64%	+0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.71%	-8.09%	-2.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	2.36%	-1.37%

Volatility

NMS vs. NCA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) is 2.67%, while Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund (NCA) has a volatility of 4.38%. This indicates that NMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NMS	NCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.67%	4.38%	-1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.27%	11.23%	-5.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.02%	12.81%	-4.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.43%	12.31%	+1.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.59%	12.48%	+2.11%

NMS vs. NCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NMS and NCA 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%.

Dividends

NMS vs. NCA - Dividend Comparison

NMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.70%, more than NCA's 3.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NCA Nuveen California Municipal Value Fund	3.80%	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	6.70%	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 NCA in my portfolio?

NMS and NCA 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 NCA?

NCA has higher volatility (4.38%) compared to NMS (2.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMS dropped -38.76% vs NCA's -37.14%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.06), 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.