XCEM vs. MUST
XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) and MUST (Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XCEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while MUST is a Money Market fund tracking the Bloomberg Beta Advantage Multi-Sector Municipal Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XCEM returned 11.95%/yr vs 0.87%/yr for MUST. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XCEM charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for MUST.
Performance
XCEM vs. MUST - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XCEM achieves a 38.32% return, which is significantly higher than MUST's 1.60% return.
XCEM
- 1D
- -1.25%
- 1M
- 12.13%
- YTD
- 38.32%
- 6M
- 44.13%
- 1Y
- 71.14%
- 3Y*
- 26.37%
- 5Y*
- 11.95%
- 10Y*
- 12.99%
MUST
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- 1.08%
- YTD
- 1.60%
- 6M
- 1.55%
- 1Y
- 7.14%
- 3Y*
- 3.82%
- 5Y*
- 0.87%
- 10Y*
- —
XCEM vs. MUST - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 38.32% | 34.05% | 0.42% | 19.96% | -17.59% | 7.87% | 9.47% | 19.74% | -2.56% |
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF | 1.60% | 4.92% | 0.37% | 6.23% | -8.82% | 1.93% | 6.67% | 8.35% | 2.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between XCEM and MUST is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2018 | 0.10 |
The correlation between XCEM and MUST shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (all time) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
XCEM vs. MUST — Risk / Return Rank
XCEM
MUST
XCEM vs. MUST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) and Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST). 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.
| XCEM | MUST | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.03 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.61 | 1.26 | +0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.95 | 2.38 | +2.57 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.98 | 6.52 | +13.46 |
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
| XCEM | MUST | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.42 | 1.39 | +2.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.68 | 0.16 | +0.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.66 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.63 | 0.54 | +0.09 |
Drawdowns
XCEM vs. MUST - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XCEM drawdown since its inception was -41.24%, which is greater than MUST's maximum drawdown of -13.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCEM and MUST.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XCEM | MUST | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.24% | -13.83% | -27.41% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.46% | -3.01% | -11.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.92% | -6.08% | -12.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.67% | -13.83% | -15.84% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.24% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.25% | -0.94% | -0.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.59% | -3.41% | -5.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.57% | 1.10% | +2.47% |
Volatility
XCEM vs. MUST - Volatility Comparison
Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a higher volatility of 9.43% compared to Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF (MUST) at 1.80%. This indicates that XCEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MUST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XCEM | MUST | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.43% | 1.80% | +7.63% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.72% | 3.60% | +15.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.89% | 5.17% | +15.72% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.75% | 5.44% | +12.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.72% | 5.59% | +14.13% |
XCEM vs. MUST - Expense Ratio Comparison
XCEM has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than MUST's 0.23% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
XCEM vs. MUST - Dividend Comparison
XCEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, less than MUST's 3.32% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUST Columbia Multi-Sector Municipal Income ETF | 3.32% | 3.28% | 3.13% | 2.51% | 1.76% | 1.62% | 2.33% | 2.70% | 0.55% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 2.35% | 3.25% | 2.76% | 1.22% | 2.42% | 1.94% | 1.63% | 2.11% | 2.70% | 9.56% | 1.24% | 2.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XCEM and MUST have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XCEM has higher volatility (9.43%) compared to MUST (1.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCEM dropped -41.24% vs MUST's -13.83%.
On 5-year performance, XCEM leads with 11.95% vs 0.87% for MUST. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, MUST has been the lower-risk option at 1.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 11.95% return vs 0.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for MUST.
MUST has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 2.35% for XCEM.
XCEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while MUST is Money Market. XCEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while MUST tracks Bloomberg Beta Advantage Multi-Sector Municipal Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XCEM and 0.23% for MUST.
XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 1.39), 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.
Find the right allocation for XCEM and MUST
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