CMF vs VTI
iShares California Municipal Bond ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CMF | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $4.6B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.94% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,595 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +0.29% | +13.87% | |
| 1Y Return | +4.86% | +23.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.98% | +21.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.45% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.6% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -22.8% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 4, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
CMF vs VTI Performance
iShares California Municipal Bond ETF (CMF) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CMF returned +4.86% while VTI returned +23.31%. Year to date, CMF is up 0.29% versus a gain of 13.87% for VTI.
Over three years, CMF compounded at +2.98% per year against +21.17% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +0.45% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.13% annualized vs +1.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 5.6% for CMF. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -22.8% for CMF and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.28. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CMF charges 0.08% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $3 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CMF currently yields 2.94% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
CMF and VTI share 0 holdings out of 3300 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CMF or VTI?
CMF has an expense ratio of 0.08% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CMF or VTI?
Over the past year CMF returned +4.86% vs +23.31% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CMF annualized +1.17% vs +8.13% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CMF or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 5.6% for CMF. Worst drawdown: CMF -22.8% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both CMF and VTI?
CMF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.28, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CMF and VTI?
CMF and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3300 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CMF or VTI?
CMF yields 2.94% while VTI yields 1.07%, so CMF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.