RSMC vs. RMCA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) and RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RSMC is a Small Cap Growth 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, RSMC returned 15.46% vs 7.55% for RMCA. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for RMCA.

Performance

RSMC vs. RMCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) 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, RSMC achieves a 14.42% return, which is significantly higher than RMCA's 2.87% return.

RSMC

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 3.78%
• YTD: 14.42%
• 6M: 11.59%
• 1Y: 15.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMCA

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 3.16%
• 1Y: 7.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RSMC vs. RMCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	14.42%	-1.02%	0.67%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.87%	2.35%	-0.80%

Correlation

The correlation between RSMC and RMCA 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 11, 2024	0.22

Return for Risk

RSMC vs. RMCA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 28
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 24
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 32

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 70
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

RSMC vs. RMCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) 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.

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.

	RSMC	RMCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	2.10	-1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	3.18	-1.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.45	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.48	3.23	-1.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.43	10.74	-6.31

RSMC vs. RMCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSMC Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is lower than the RMCA Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSMC 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.

Drawdowns

RSMC vs. RMCA - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	RSMC	RMCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.33%	-5.95%	-16.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.49%	-2.35%	-8.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.13%	-1.59%	-3.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.49%	0.70%	+2.79%

Volatility

RSMC vs. RMCA - Volatility Comparison

Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) has a higher volatility of 4.03% compared to Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) at 0.86%. This indicates that RSMC'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

	RSMC	RMCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.03%	0.86%	+3.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.67%	2.47%	+10.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.31%	3.62%	+13.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.27%	5.33%	+14.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.27%	5.33%	+14.94%

RSMC vs. RMCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RSMC vs. RMCA - Dividend Comparison

RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.33%	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 RSMC and RMCA in my portfolio?

RSMC and RMCA 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, RSMC or RMCA?

RSMC has higher volatility (4.03%) compared to RMCA (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMC dropped -22.33% vs RMCA's -5.95%.

Which ETF is better, RSMC or RMCA?

On 1-year performance, RSMC leads with 15.46% vs 7.55% for RMCA. On fees, RMCA is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, RMCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSMC or RMCA?

Over the 1-year period, RSMC has performed better with a 15.46% return vs 7.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSMC or RMCA?

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

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

RMCA has the higher dividend yield at 4.33%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.

What is the main difference between RSMC and RMCA?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs 0.90), 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.