RGEF vs. RMCA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RGEF (Rockefeller Global Equity ETF) and RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RGEF is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Rockefeller, while RMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Rockefeller. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RGEF returned 31.38% vs 7.66% for RMCA. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.55% expense ratio.

Performance

RGEF vs. RMCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller Global Equity ETF (RGEF) and Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RGEF achieves a 14.44% return, which is significantly higher than RMCA's 2.53% return.

RGEF

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 5.07%
• YTD: 14.44%
• 6M: 15.39%
• 1Y: 31.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMCA

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 0.85%
• YTD: 2.53%
• 6M: 2.48%
• 1Y: 7.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RGEF vs. RMCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RGEF Rockefeller Global Equity ETF	14.44%	25.37%	-1.25%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.53%	2.35%	-0.18%

Correlation

The correlation between RGEF and RMCA is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2024	0.22

Return for Risk

RGEF vs. RMCA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RGEF

RGEF Risk / Return Rank: 68
RGEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
RGEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
RGEF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
RGEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
RGEF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 62
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 70
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

RGEF vs. RMCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller Global Equity ETF (RGEF) and Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA). 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.

	RGEF	RMCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	2.05	+0.24
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	3.08	+0.12
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.43	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	3.01	+0.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.56	10.00	+4.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RGEF vs. RMCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RGEF Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the RMCA Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGEF and RMCA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RGEF	RMCA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.29	2.05	+0.24
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.47	0.49	+0.98

Drawdowns

RGEF vs. RMCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGEF drawdown since its inception was -16.01%, which is greater than RMCA's maximum drawdown of -5.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGEF and RMCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGEF	RMCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.01%	-5.95%	-10.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.95%	-2.35%	-7.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.79%	-1.64%	-0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	0.71%	+1.51%

Volatility

RGEF vs. RMCA - Volatility Comparison

Rockefeller Global Equity ETF (RGEF) has a higher volatility of 4.31% compared to Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) at 1.13%. This indicates that RGEF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RGEF	RMCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.31%	1.13%	+3.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.12%	2.50%	+8.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.78%	3.80%	+9.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	5.39%	+11.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.81%	5.39%	+11.42%

RGEF vs. RMCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both RGEF and RMCA have an expense ratio of 0.55%.

Dividends

RGEF vs. RMCA - Dividend Comparison

RGEF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, less than RMCA's 4.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
RGEF Rockefeller Global Equity ETF	0.88%	0.92%	0.29%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.35%	4.51%	1.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RGEF and RMCA in my portfolio?

RGEF and RMCA have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RGEF or RMCA?

RGEF has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to RMCA (1.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RGEF dropped -16.01% vs RMCA's -5.95%.

Which ETF is better, RGEF or RMCA?

On 1-year performance, RGEF leads with 31.38% vs 7.66% for RMCA. Both ETFs have the same 0.55% expense ratio. On volatility, RMCA has been the lower-risk option at 1.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RGEF or RMCA?

Over the 1-year period, RGEF has performed better with a 31.38% return vs 7.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RGEF or RMCA?

RGEF and RMCA have the same expense ratio: 0.55% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RGEF or RMCA?

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.35%, compared with 0.88% for RGEF.

What is the main difference between RGEF and RMCA?

RGEF is categorized as Global Equities, while RMCA is Municipal Bonds.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RGEF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 2.05), 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.