PWZ vs. AMUN
PWZ (Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF) and AMUN (abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. PWZ is passively managed, while AMUN is actively managed. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PWZ charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for AMUN.
Performance
PWZ vs. AMUN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PWZ achieves a 2.53% return, which is significantly higher than AMUN's 1.13% return.
PWZ
- 1D
- 0.25%
- 1M
- 0.99%
- YTD
- 2.53%
- 6M
- 2.73%
- 1Y
- 8.84%
- 3Y*
- 3.24%
- 5Y*
- 0.17%
- 10Y*
- 1.91%
AMUN
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.34%
- YTD
- 1.13%
- 6M
- 1.40%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PWZ vs. AMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PWZ Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF | 2.53% | 0.04% |
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.13% | 0.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between PWZ and AMUN is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2025 | 0.28 |
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
PWZ vs. AMUN — Risk / Return Rank
PWZ
AMUN
PWZ vs. AMUN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) and abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF (AMUN). 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.
| PWZ | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.04 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.08 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.36 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.55 | — | — |
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
| PWZ | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.04 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.03 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.32 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.46 | 2.09 | -1.63 |
Drawdowns
PWZ vs. AMUN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PWZ drawdown since its inception was -21.49%, which is greater than AMUN's maximum drawdown of -0.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWZ and AMUN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PWZ | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.49% | -0.61% | -20.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.47% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.09% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.56% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -17.56% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.48% | 0.00% | -0.48% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.54% | -0.09% | -3.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.96% | — | — |
Volatility
PWZ vs. AMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PWZ | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.39% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.04% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.39% | 1.01% | +3.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.25% | 1.01% | +5.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.89% | 1.01% | +4.88% |
PWZ vs. AMUN - Expense Ratio Comparison
PWZ has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than AMUN's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
PWZ vs. AMUN - Dividend Comparison
PWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.57%, more than AMUN's 1.89% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.89% | 0.66% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PWZ Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF | 3.57% | 3.41% | 3.28% | 2.84% | 2.49% | 2.28% | 2.34% | 2.51% | 2.53% | 2.48% | 2.86% | 3.16% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PWZ and AMUN have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, AMUN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
AMUN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for PWZ.
PWZ has the higher dividend yield at 3.57%, compared with 1.89% for AMUN.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for PWZ and 0.25% for AMUN.
Find the right allocation for PWZ and AMUN
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