PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMPT vs. FLTR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMPT vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF (XMPT) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMPT achieves a 2.72% return, which is significantly higher than FLTR's 1.91% return. Over the past 10 years, XMPT has underperformed FLTR with an annualized return of 1.98%, while FLTR has yielded a comparatively higher 3.51% annualized return.


XMPT

1D
-0.09%
1M
1.03%
YTD
2.72%
6M
3.73%
1Y
12.34%
3Y*
7.38%
5Y*
-1.07%
10Y*
1.98%

FLTR

1D
-0.04%
1M
0.46%
YTD
1.91%
6M
2.40%
1Y
5.30%
3Y*
6.10%
5Y*
4.49%
10Y*
3.51%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMPT vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMPT
VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF
2.72%8.01%7.01%2.55%-24.02%7.94%7.70%20.36%-5.85%8.28%
FLTR
VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF
1.91%5.22%7.38%7.41%0.74%0.55%1.44%5.70%0.30%2.80%

Correlation

The correlation between XMPT and FLTR is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.06

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.11

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.12

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2011

0.03

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

XMPT vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMPT
XMPT Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
XMPT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMPT Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMPT Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
XMPT Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMPT Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
Martin Ratio Rank

FLTR
FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 9999
Overall Rank
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XMPT vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF (XMPT) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.


XMPTFLTRDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.72

6.77

-5.05

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.55

12.78

-10.23

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

3.15

-1.80

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.82

16.96

-15.14

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

7.48

101.23

-93.74

XMPT vs. FLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMPT Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is lower than the FLTR Sharpe Ratio of 6.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMPT and FLTR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XMPTFLTRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.72

6.77

-5.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.11

2.11

-2.23

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

0.70

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.53

-0.11

Drawdowns

XMPT vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMPT drawdown since its inception was -35.24%, which is greater than FLTR's maximum drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMPT and FLTR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMPTFLTRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.24%

-17.84%

-17.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.57%

-0.31%

-6.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.04%

-1.93%

-13.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.24%

-3.06%

-32.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.24%

-17.84%

-17.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.61%

-0.04%

-8.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.82%

-0.67%

-8.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.60%

0.05%

+1.55%

Volatility

XMPT vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison

VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF (XMPT) has a higher volatility of 2.91% compared to VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.25%. This indicates that XMPT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMPTFLTRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.91%

0.25%

+2.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.03%

0.62%

+5.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.21%

0.79%

+6.42%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.35%

2.13%

+7.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.36%

5.00%

+5.36%

XMPT vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMPT has a 1.97% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTR's 0.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

XMPT vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison

XMPT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.31%, more than FLTR's 4.73% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLTR
VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF
4.73%4.97%5.93%6.07%2.29%0.63%1.49%3.05%2.67%1.69%1.16%0.71%
XMPT
VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF
6.31%5.87%5.35%3.81%5.12%3.74%3.79%4.08%5.05%4.84%5.35%5.24%

Frequently Asked Questions


XMPT and FLTR have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XMPT has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to FLTR (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMPT dropped -35.24% vs FLTR's -17.84%.

On 10-year performance, FLTR leads with 3.51% vs 1.98% for XMPT. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FLTR has performed better with a 3.51% return vs 1.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 1.97% for XMPT.

XMPT has the higher dividend yield at 6.31%, compared with 4.73% for FLTR.

XMPT is categorized as High Yield Muni, while FLTR is Corporate Bonds. XMPT tracks S-Network Municipal Bond Closed-End Fund Index, while FLTR tracks MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. Their fees differ too: 1.97% for XMPT and 0.14% for FLTR.

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.77 vs 1.72), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMPT and FLTR

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