NMT vs. NMS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NMT (Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund) and NMS (Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund) are both Municipal Bonds funds from Nuveen. Over the past 10 years, NMT returned 3.00%/yr vs 1.77%/yr for NMS. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NMT charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for NMS.

Performance

NMT vs. NMS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NMT achieves a 17.73% return, which is significantly higher than NMS's 7.62% return. Over the past 10 years, NMT has outperformed NMS with an annualized return of 3.00%, while NMS has yielded a comparatively lower 1.77% annualized return.

NMT

• 1D: 1.05%
• 1M: 1.14%
• YTD: 17.73%
• 6M: 16.03%
• 1Y: 16.05%
• 3Y*: 14.55%
• 5Y*: 2.38%
• 10Y*: 3.00%

NMS

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 1.04%
• YTD: 7.62%
• 6M: 5.78%
• 1Y: 15.72%
• 3Y*: 9.94%
• 5Y*: -0.25%
• 10Y*: 1.77%

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

NMT vs. NMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NMT Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund	17.73%	5.77%	16.29%	2.58%	-30.45%	12.42%	6.47%	25.65%	-14.05%	13.80%
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund	7.62%	2.10%	19.59%	1.57%	-21.89%	5.47%	5.80%	25.72%	-13.31%	-1.58%

Correlation

The correlation between NMT and NMS is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2014	0.22

The correlation between NMT and NMS shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (1 year) to 0.36 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NMT vs. NMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

NMT

NMT Risk / Return Rank: 34
NMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
NMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
NMT Omega Ratio Rank: 35
NMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
NMT Martin Ratio Rank: 26

NMS

NMS Risk / Return Rank: 66
NMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
NMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
NMS Omega Ratio Rank: 51
NMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
NMS Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

NMT vs. NMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMT) 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.

	NMT	NMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	1.97	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	2.93	-0.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.38	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.49	5.56	-3.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.07	15.80	-9.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NMT vs. NMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NMT Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is comparable to the NMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NMT and NMS, 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

	NMT	NMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.56	1.97	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19	-0.02	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.21	0.12	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.23	+0.18

Drawdowns

NMT vs. NMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NMT drawdown since its inception was -40.12%, roughly equal to the maximum NMS drawdown of -38.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NMT and NMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	NMT	NMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.12%	-38.76%	-1.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.47%	-2.84%	-3.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.28%	-17.28%	+4.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.88%	-38.76%	-0.12%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.88%	-38.76%	-0.12%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.19%	-3.42%	+1.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.45%	-10.71%	+2.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.65%	1.00%	+1.65%

Volatility

NMT vs. NMS - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMT) has a higher volatility of 5.11% compared to Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund (NMS) at 2.66%. This indicates that NMT'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.

Volatility by Period

	NMT	NMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.11%	2.66%	+2.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.21%	5.25%	+2.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.36%	8.02%	+2.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.37%	13.43%	-1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.07%	14.58%	-0.51%

NMT vs. NMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NMT vs. NMS - Dividend Comparison

NMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.07%, less than NMS's 6.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NMS Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund	6.67%	7.29%	6.05%	4.03%	5.24%	4.19%	3.93%	4.05%	5.52%	5.20%	4.68%	5.60%
NMT Nuveen Massachusetts Quality Municipal Income Fund	6.07%	7.27%	5.94%	3.06%	4.50%	3.43%	3.60%	3.46%	4.66%	4.57%	5.30%	5.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NMT and NMS in my portfolio?

NMT and NMS have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NMT or NMS?

NMT has higher volatility (5.11%) compared to NMS (2.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NMT dropped -40.12% vs NMS's -38.76%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.56), 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.