RMCA vs. RSMC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) and RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Rockefeller, while RSMC is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Rockefeller. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMCA returned 7.50% vs 10.70% for RSMC. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMCA charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RSMC.

Performance

RMCA vs. RSMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMCA achieves a 2.37% return, which is significantly lower than RSMC's 10.93% return.

RMCA

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.68%
• YTD: 2.37%
• 6M: 2.78%
• 1Y: 7.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RSMC

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 6M: 9.73%
• 1Y: 10.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMCA vs. RSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.37%	2.35%	-0.95%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	10.93%	-1.02%	0.68%

Correlation

The correlation between RMCA and RSMC is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024	0.21

Return for Risk

RMCA vs. RSMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 65
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 71
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 60

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 20
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 18
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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. RSMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). 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	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	0.63	+1.38
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	1.01	+2.00
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.12	+0.30
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.21	1.05	+2.16
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.63	3.14	+7.49
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. RSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is higher than the RSMC Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMCA and RSMC, 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	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.00	0.63	+1.38
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.31	+0.16

Drawdowns

RMCA vs. RSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMCA drawdown since its inception was -5.95%, smaller than the maximum RSMC drawdown of -22.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMCA and RSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMCA	RSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-22.33%	+16.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.35%	-10.49%	+8.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-1.96%	+1.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.63%	-5.27%	+3.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.71%	3.50%	-2.79%

Volatility

RMCA vs. RSMC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) is 1.15%, while Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) has a volatility of 4.86%. This indicates that RMCA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMCA	RSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.15%	4.86%	-3.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.49%	12.41%	-9.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.76%	17.16%	-13.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.38%	20.40%	-15.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.38%	20.40%	-15.02%

RMCA vs. RSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMCA has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than RSMC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMCA vs. RSMC - Dividend Comparison

RMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.36%, while RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.36%	4.51%	1.20%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMCA and RSMC in my portfolio?

RMCA and RSMC have a correlation of 0.21, 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 RSMC?

RSMC has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to RMCA (1.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMCA dropped -5.95% vs RSMC's -22.33%.

Which ETF is better, RMCA or RSMC?

On 1-year performance, RSMC leads with 10.70% vs 7.50% for RMCA. On fees, RMCA is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, RMCA has been the lower-risk option at 1.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMCA or RSMC?

Over the 1-year period, RSMC has performed better with a 10.70% return vs 7.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMCA or RSMC?

RMCA is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.

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

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.36%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.

What is the main difference between RMCA and RSMC?

RMCA is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while RSMC is Small Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for RMCA and 0.75% for RSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 0.63), 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.