PWZ vs. CMF
PWZ (Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF) and CMF (iShares California Muni Bond ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds - PWZ tracks the ICE BofA California Long-Term Core Plus Muni while CMF tracks the S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PWZ returned 1.81%/yr vs 1.66%/yr for CMF. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PWZ charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for CMF.
Performance
PWZ vs. CMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PWZ achieves a 2.80% return, which is significantly higher than CMF's 1.28% return. Over the past 10 years, PWZ has outperformed CMF with an annualized return of 1.81%, while CMF has yielded a comparatively lower 1.66% annualized return.
PWZ
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- 2.19%
- YTD
- 2.80%
- 6M
- 2.89%
- 1Y
- 8.71%
- 3Y*
- 2.96%
- 5Y*
- 0.19%
- 10Y*
- 1.81%
CMF
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 1.39%
- YTD
- 1.28%
- 6M
- 1.51%
- 1Y
- 6.61%
- 3Y*
- 3.14%
- 5Y*
- 0.75%
- 10Y*
- 1.66%
PWZ vs. CMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PWZ Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF | 2.80% | 1.26% | 2.16% | 6.55% | -11.35% | 1.94% | 4.90% | 8.72% | 0.32% | 6.82% |
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 1.28% | 3.36% | 1.65% | 5.71% | -8.27% | 0.78% | 4.50% | 6.94% | 0.99% | 4.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between PWZ and CMF is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.74 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.66 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2007 | 0.46 |
Over the past year, PWZ and CMF have become more correlated (0.80) than their long-term average of 0.46, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. CMF — Risk / Return Rank
PWZ
CMF
PWZ vs. CMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) and iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF). 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 | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | 1.54 | -0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.52 | 2.28 | +0.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.11 | 7.50 | +1.61 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PWZ vs. CMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PWZ drawdown since its inception was -21.49%, which is greater than CMF's maximum drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWZ and CMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PWZ | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.49% | -16.45% | -5.04% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.47% | -2.91% | -0.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.09% | -5.22% | -3.87% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.56% | -12.45% | -5.11% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -17.56% | -14.57% | -2.99% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.22% | -0.61% | +0.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.53% | -4.76% | +1.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.96% | 0.88% | +0.08% |
Volatility
PWZ vs. CMF - Volatility Comparison
Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) has a higher volatility of 1.06% compared to iShares California Muni Bond ETF (CMF) at 0.71%. This indicates that PWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PWZ | CMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.06% | 0.71% | +0.35% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.05% | 2.17% | +0.88% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.29% | 2.77% | +1.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.25% | 4.19% | +2.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.89% | 5.08% | +0.81% |
PWZ vs. CMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
PWZ has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than CMF's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
PWZ vs. CMF - Dividend Comparison
PWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.88%, more than CMF's 2.94% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMF iShares California Muni Bond ETF | 2.94% | 2.94% | 2.78% | 2.29% | 1.91% | 1.58% | 1.80% | 2.03% | 2.17% | 2.09% | 2.21% | 2.55% |
PWZ Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF | 3.88% | 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 CMF have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PWZ has higher volatility (1.06%) compared to CMF (0.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWZ dropped -21.49% vs CMF's -16.45%.
On 10-year performance, PWZ leads with 1.81% vs 1.66% for CMF. On fees, CMF is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CMF has been the lower-risk option at 0.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, PWZ has performed better with a 1.81% return vs 1.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CMF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for PWZ.
PWZ has the higher dividend yield at 3.88%, compared with 2.94% for CMF.
PWZ tracks ICE BofA California Long-Term Core Plus Muni, while CMF tracks S&P California AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for PWZ and 0.25% for CMF.
CMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 2.04), 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.
Find the right allocation for PWZ and CMF
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