SHM vs. AUSM
SHM (SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF) and AUSM (Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF) are both Municipal Bonds funds. SHM is passively managed, while AUSM is actively managed. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SHM charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AUSM.
Performance
SHM vs. AUSM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SHM achieves a 0.78% return, which is significantly lower than AUSM's 0.98% return.
SHM
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.39%
- YTD
- 0.78%
- 6M
- 1.08%
- 1Y
- 3.47%
- 3Y*
- 2.93%
- 5Y*
- 0.91%
- 10Y*
- 1.20%
AUSM
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.98%
- 6M
- 1.34%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SHM vs. AUSM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
SHM SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF | 0.78% | 1.72% |
AUSM Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF | 0.98% | 1.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between SHM and AUSM is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2025 | 0.27 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
SHM vs. AUSM — Risk / Return Rank
SHM
AUSM
SHM vs. AUSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF (SHM) and Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF (AUSM). 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.
| SHM | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.59 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.08 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.88 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SHM | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.76 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.36 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.48 | 3.98 | -3.50 |
Drawdowns
SHM vs. AUSM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SHM drawdown since its inception was -11.61%, which is greater than AUSM's maximum drawdown of -0.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SHM and AUSM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SHM | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.61% | -0.42% | -11.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.03% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -6.67% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -11.61% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.37% | -0.02% | -0.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.97% | -0.09% | -0.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.44% | — | — |
Volatility
SHM vs. AUSM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SHM | AUSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.35% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.85% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.26% | 0.73% | +0.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.07% | 0.73% | +1.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.31% | 0.73% | +2.58% |
SHM vs. AUSM - Expense Ratio Comparison
SHM has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than AUSM's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
SHM vs. AUSM - Dividend Comparison
SHM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%, more than AUSM's 2.39% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUSM Allspring Ultra Short Municipal ETF | 2.39% | 1.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SHM SPDR Nuveen Bloomberg Barclays Short Term Municipal Bond ETF | 2.67% | 2.61% | 2.06% | 1.15% | 0.69% | 0.86% | 1.24% | 1.40% | 1.23% | 1.06% | 0.94% | 0.92% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SHM and AUSM 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.
On fees, AUSM is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
AUSM is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for SHM.
SHM has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 2.39% for AUSM.
They also come from different issuers: State Street and Allspring. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for SHM and 0.18% for AUSM.
Find the right allocation for SHM and AUSM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer