RMCA vs. RGEF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) and RGEF (Rockefeller Global Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Rockefeller, while RGEF is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Rockefeller. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMCA returned 7.24% vs 28.06% for RGEF. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.55% expense ratio.

Performance

RMCA vs. RGEF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMCA achieves a 2.75% return, which is significantly lower than RGEF's 11.69% return.

RMCA

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 2.75%
• 6M: 2.99%
• 1Y: 7.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RGEF

• 1D: -2.37%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 11.69%
• 6M: 11.31%
• 1Y: 28.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMCA vs. RGEF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.75%	2.35%	-0.10%
RGEF Rockefeller Global Equity ETF	11.69%	25.37%	-1.33%

Correlation

The correlation between RMCA and RGEF is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2024	0.24

Return for Risk

RMCA vs. RGEF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 71
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 62

RGEF

RGEF Risk / Return Rank: 65
RGEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
RGEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
RGEF Omega Ratio Rank: 61
RGEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
RGEF Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. RGEF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	RMCA	RGEF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.90	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	2.64	+0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.34	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.10	2.83	+0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.31	12.33	-2.02

RMCA vs. RGEF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the RGEF Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMCA and RGEF, 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

RMCA vs. RGEF - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	RMCA	RGEF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-16.01%	+10.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.35%	-9.95%	+7.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-2.94%	+2.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.59%	-1.79%	+0.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.70%	2.28%	-1.58%

Volatility

RMCA vs. RGEF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) is 0.88%, while Rockefeller Global Equity ETF (RGEF) has a volatility of 6.27%. This indicates that RMCA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RGEF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMCA	RGEF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.88%	6.27%	-5.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.48%	12.43%	-9.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.62%	14.83%	-11.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.32%	17.15%	-11.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.32%	17.15%	-11.83%

RMCA vs. RGEF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RMCA vs. RGEF - Dividend Comparison

RMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.34%, more than RGEF's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
RGEF Rockefeller Global Equity ETF	0.90%	0.92%	0.29%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.34%	4.51%	1.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMCA and RGEF in my portfolio?

RMCA and RGEF have a correlation of 0.27, 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 RGEF?

RGEF has higher volatility (6.27%) compared to RMCA (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMCA dropped -5.95% vs RGEF's -16.01%.

Which ETF is better, RMCA or RGEF?

On 1-year performance, RGEF leads with 28.06% vs 7.24% for RMCA. Both ETFs have the same 0.55% expense ratio. On volatility, RMCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMCA or RGEF?

Over the 1-year period, RGEF has performed better with a 28.06% return vs 7.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMCA or RGEF?

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

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

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.34%, compared with 0.90% for RGEF.

What is the main difference between RMCA and RGEF?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.90), 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.