NYF vs. AUSM
NYF (iShares New York Muni Bond ETF) and AUSM (Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. NYF is passively managed, while AUSM is actively managed. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NYF charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AUSM.
Performance
NYF vs. AUSM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NYF achieves a 1.51% return, which is significantly higher than AUSM's 0.98% return.
NYF
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.58%
- YTD
- 1.51%
- 6M
- 1.91%
- 1Y
- 6.81%
- 3Y*
- 3.36%
- 5Y*
- 0.83%
- 10Y*
- 1.81%
AUSM
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.98%
- 6M
- 1.34%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NYF vs. AUSM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NYF iShares New York Muni Bond ETF | 1.51% | 4.59% |
AUSM Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF | 0.98% | 1.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between NYF and AUSM is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2025 | 0.10 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
NYF vs. AUSM — Risk / Return Rank
NYF
AUSM
NYF vs. AUSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF) and Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF (AUSM). 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.
| NYF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.48 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.88 | — | — |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| NYF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.46 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.40 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.47 | 3.98 | -3.51 |
Drawdowns
NYF vs. AUSM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NYF drawdown since its inception was -13.12%, which is greater than AUSM's maximum drawdown of -0.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NYF and AUSM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NYF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.12% | -0.42% | -12.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.76% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.68% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -12.71% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -13.12% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.56% | -0.02% | -0.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.31% | -0.09% | -2.22% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.77% | — | — |
Volatility
NYF vs. AUSM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NYF | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.95% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.08% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.78% | 0.73% | +2.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.00% | 0.73% | +3.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.48% | 0.73% | +3.75% |
NYF vs. AUSM - Expense Ratio Comparison
NYF has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than AUSM's 0.18% 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
NYF vs. AUSM - Dividend Comparison
NYF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.09%, more than AUSM's 2.39% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUSM Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF | 2.39% | 1.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
NYF iShares New York Muni Bond ETF | 3.09% | 2.99% | 2.77% | 2.36% | 2.04% | 1.85% | 1.98% | 2.19% | 2.48% | 2.46% | 2.43% | 2.60% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NYF and AUSM have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, AUSM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
AUSM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for NYF.
NYF has the higher dividend yield at 3.09%, compared with 2.39% for AUSM.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Allspring. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for NYF and 0.18% for AUSM.
Find the right allocation for NYF and AUSM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer