Screener
CEFS vs CGMU
Saba Closed-End Funds ETF vs Capital Group Municipal Income ETF
Key differences
- CGMU costs 2.34% less per year.
- CGMU is significantly larger than CEFS — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- CEFS is classified as alternative, while CGMU is fixed income — different risk/return profiles.
- CEFS follows a active selection strategy; CGMU uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, CEFS has delivered higher annualized returns.
- CEFS has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| CEFS | CGMU | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 2.61% | 0.27% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $402M | $5.8B |
| Since | 2017 | 2022 |
| Dividend yield | 6.24% | 3.35% |
| Asset class | alternative | fixed income |
| Region | — | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +24.3% | +6.2% |
| CAGR 3Y | +21.5% | +4.2% |
| CAGR 5Y | +13.7% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 1.39 | 0.18 |
| Volatility 1Y | 9.92% | 2.28% |
| Max drawdown | -38.99% | -4.10% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to CEFS and CGMU
Explore further