PWZ vs. FCTFX

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

PWZ (Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF) and FCTFX (Fidelity California Municipal Income Fund) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Over the past 10 years, PWZ returned 1.81%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for FCTFX. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PWZ charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for FCTFX.

Performance

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) and Fidelity California Municipal Income Fund (FCTFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWZ achieves a 2.80% return, which is significantly higher than FCTFX's 1.42% return. Over the past 10 years, PWZ has underperformed FCTFX with an annualized return of 1.81%, while FCTFX has yielded a comparatively higher 2.07% 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%

FCTFX

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 1.74%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 1.77%
• 1Y: 7.26%
• 3Y*: 4.46%
• 5Y*: 1.15%
• 10Y*: 2.07%

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

PWZ vs. FCTFX - 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%
FCTFX Fidelity California Municipal Income Fund	1.42%	5.75%	1.89%	6.53%	-9.64%	1.39%	4.50%	7.63%	0.68%	5.81%

Correlation

The correlation between PWZ and FCTFX is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2007	0.52

The correlation between PWZ and FCTFX shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (all time) to 0.67 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PWZ vs. FCTFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWZ

PWZ Risk / Return Rank: 63
PWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
PWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
PWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 74
PWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
PWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 54

FCTFX

FCTFX Risk / Return Rank: 67
FCTFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
FCTFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FCTFX Omega Ratio Rank: 91
FCTFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
FCTFX Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) and Fidelity California Municipal Income Fund (FCTFX). 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	FCTFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.58	-0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	3.92	-0.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.64	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	2.13	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.11	6.99	+2.13

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the FCTFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWZ and FCTFX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWZ drawdown since its inception was -21.49%, smaller than the maximum FCTFX drawdown of -23.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWZ and FCTFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWZ	FCTFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.49%	-23.20%	+1.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.47%	-3.42%	-0.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.09%	-5.39%	-3.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.56%	-14.01%	-3.55%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-17.56%	-14.01%	-3.55%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-0.82%	+0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.53%	-2.43%	-1.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.96%	1.04%	-0.08%

Volatility

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Volatility Comparison

Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) has a higher volatility of 1.06% compared to Fidelity California Municipal Income Fund (FCTFX) at 0.77%. This indicates that PWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCTFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PWZ	FCTFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.06%	0.77%	+0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.05%	2.22%	+0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.29%	2.83%	+1.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.25%	3.97%	+2.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.89%	4.06%	+1.83%

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWZ has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than FCTFX's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWZ vs. FCTFX - Dividend Comparison

PWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.88%, more than FCTFX's 3.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCTFX Fidelity California Municipal Income Fund	3.02%	3.86%	2.85%	2.67%	1.67%	2.28%	2.79%	2.84%	3.01%	3.53%	3.52%	3.03%
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

Can I hold both PWZ and FCTFX in my portfolio?

PWZ and FCTFX have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PWZ or FCTFX?

PWZ has higher volatility (1.06%) compared to FCTFX (0.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWZ dropped -21.49% vs FCTFX's -23.20%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FCTFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 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.