RMCA vs. GUMI

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) and GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMCA returned 7.66% vs 3.24% for GUMI. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMCA charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for GUMI.

Performance

RMCA vs. GUMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMCA achieves a 2.53% return, which is significantly higher than GUMI's 1.10% return.

RMCA

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

GUMI

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.10%
• 6M: 1.28%
• 1Y: 3.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMCA vs. GUMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.53%	2.35%	-0.14%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.10%	3.39%	1.23%

Correlation

The correlation between RMCA and GUMI is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 14, 2024	0.34

Return for Risk

RMCA vs. GUMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 93
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

RMCA vs. GUMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI). 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.

	RMCA	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	2.98	-0.93
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	4.80	-1.72
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.66	-0.22
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.01	9.03	-6.01
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.00	38.31	-28.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RMCA vs. GUMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is lower than the GUMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMCA and GUMI, 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

	RMCA	GUMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	2.98	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.49	3.32	-2.83

Drawdowns

RMCA vs. GUMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMCA drawdown since its inception was -5.95%, which is greater than GUMI's maximum drawdown of -0.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMCA and GUMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMCA	GUMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-0.48%	-5.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.35%	-0.36%	-1.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.64%	-0.05%	-1.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.71%	0.08%	+0.63%

Volatility

RMCA vs. GUMI - Volatility Comparison

Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) has a higher volatility of 1.13% compared to Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) at 0.24%. This indicates that RMCA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GUMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMCA	GUMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.13%	0.24%	+0.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.50%	0.55%	+1.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.80%	1.09%	+2.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.39%	0.99%	+4.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.39%	0.99%	+4.40%

RMCA vs. GUMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMCA has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than GUMI's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMCA vs. GUMI - Dividend Comparison

RMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.35%, more than GUMI's 2.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.77%	2.95%	1.37%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.35%	4.51%	1.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMCA and GUMI in my portfolio?

RMCA and GUMI have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RMCA or GUMI?

RMCA has higher volatility (1.13%) compared to GUMI (0.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMCA dropped -5.95% vs GUMI's -0.48%.

Which ETF is better, RMCA or GUMI?

On 1-year performance, RMCA leads with 7.66% vs 3.24% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, GUMI has been the lower-risk option at 0.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMCA or GUMI?

Over the 1-year period, RMCA has performed better with a 7.66% return vs 3.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMCA or GUMI?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for RMCA.

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

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.35%, compared with 2.77% for GUMI.

What is the main difference between RMCA and GUMI?

They also come from different issuers: Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for RMCA and 0.16% for GUMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.98 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.