XMPT vs. RMOP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

XMPT (VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF) and RMOP (Rockefeller Opportunistic Municipal Bond ETF) are both High Yield Muni funds. XMPT is passively managed, while RMOP is actively managed. Over the past year, XMPT returned 12.34% vs 10.16% for RMOP. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMPT charges 1.97%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for RMOP.

Performance

XMPT vs. RMOP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF (XMPT) and Rockefeller Opportunistic Municipal Bond ETF (RMOP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMPT achieves a 2.72% return, which is significantly lower than RMOP's 3.36% 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%

RMOP

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: 3.36%
• 6M: 3.82%
• 1Y: 10.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XMPT vs. RMOP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
XMPT VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF	2.72%	8.01%	-2.17%
RMOP Rockefeller Opportunistic Municipal Bond ETF	3.36%	3.90%	2.64%

Correlation

The correlation between XMPT and RMOP is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 14, 2024	0.58

The correlation between XMPT and RMOP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

XMPT vs. RMOP — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMPT

XMPT Risk / Return Rank: 48
XMPT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
XMPT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
XMPT Omega Ratio Rank: 55
XMPT Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
XMPT Martin Ratio Rank: 45

RMOP

RMOP Risk / Return Rank: 79
RMOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RMOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
RMOP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
RMOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
RMOP Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. RMOP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF (XMPT) and Rockefeller Opportunistic Municipal Bond ETF (RMOP). 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.

	XMPT	RMOP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	2.68	-0.96
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	4.00	-1.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.55	-0.21
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.82	3.62	-1.80
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.48	13.00	-5.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMPT vs. RMOP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMPT Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is lower than the RMOP Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMPT and RMOP, 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

	XMPT	RMOP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.72	2.68	-0.96
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.11	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.99	-0.57

Drawdowns

XMPT vs. RMOP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMPT drawdown since its inception was -35.24%, which is greater than RMOP's maximum drawdown of -6.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMPT and RMOP.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMPT	RMOP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.24%	-6.67%	-28.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.57%	-2.66%	-3.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.04%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.24%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.61%	0.00%	-8.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-1.52%	-7.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	0.74%	+0.86%

Volatility

XMPT vs. RMOP - Volatility Comparison

VanEck CEF Municipal Income ETF (XMPT) has a higher volatility of 2.91% compared to Rockefeller Opportunistic Municipal Bond ETF (RMOP) at 1.23%. This indicates that XMPT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMOP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMPT	RMOP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.91%	1.23%	+1.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.03%	2.68%	+3.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.21%	3.85%	+3.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.35%	5.66%	+3.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.36%	5.66%	+4.70%

XMPT vs. RMOP - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMPT has a 1.97% expense ratio, which is higher than RMOP's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMPT vs. RMOP - Dividend Comparison

XMPT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.31%, more than RMOP's 5.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RMOP Rockefeller Opportunistic Municipal Bond ETF	5.20%	5.15%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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

Can I hold both XMPT and RMOP in my portfolio?

XMPT and RMOP have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XMPT or RMOP?

XMPT has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to RMOP (1.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMPT dropped -35.24% vs RMOP's -6.67%.

Which ETF is better, XMPT or RMOP?

On 1-year performance, XMPT leads with 12.34% vs 10.16% for RMOP. On fees, RMOP is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, RMOP has been the lower-risk option at 1.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XMPT or RMOP?

Over the 1-year period, XMPT has performed better with a 12.34% return vs 10.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMPT or RMOP?

RMOP is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.97% for XMPT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XMPT or RMOP?

XMPT has the higher dividend yield at 6.31%, compared with 5.20% for RMOP.

What is the main difference between XMPT and RMOP?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 1.97% for XMPT and 0.55% for RMOP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 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.