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. Their 0.26 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. 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 1.12% return, which is significantly lower than AMUN's 1.48% return.
PWZ
- 1D
- -0.15%
- 1M
- -2.41%
- 6M
- 0.80%
- YTD
- 1.12%
- 1Y
- 7.38%
- 3Y*
- 2.53%
- 5Y*
- -0.32%
- 10Y*
- 1.66%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.16%
AMUN
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.13%
- 6M
- 1.17%
- YTD
- 1.48%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $21.67K | $39.49K | $71.65K | |
| $6.43M | $5.37M | $5.33M |
PWZ vs. AMUN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PWZ Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF | 1.12% | 0.12% |
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 1.48% | 0.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between PWZ and AMUN is 0.26, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2025 | 0.26 |
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
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
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.
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.
| PWZ | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.40 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.39 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.86 | — | — |
Loading charts...
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 | -17.39% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -17.56% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.41% | 0.00% | -2.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.52% | -0.07% | -3.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.94% | — | — |
Volatility
PWZ vs. AMUN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PWZ | AMUN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.05% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.12% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.28% | 0.94% | +3.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.27% | 0.94% | +5.33% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.88% | 0.94% | +4.94% |
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 3.73%, more than AMUN's 2.13% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMUN abrdn Ultra Short Municipal Income Active ETF | 2.13% | 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 | 3.73% | 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 0.26, 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 3.73%, compared with 2.13% 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