MUB Offers Broader Bond Mix Than VGIT

The iShares National Muni Bond ETF (MUB) is drawing renewed attention for its broader issuer and credit composition relative to the Vanguard Intermediate‑Term Treasury ETF (VGIT), a dynamic that has consequences for portfolio construction as U.S. rate volatility remains elevated. As of March 27–28, 2026, public fund documents and market reporting show MUB holding roughly 2,500 municipal bond issues versus VGIT’s narrower universe concentrated in U.S. Treasuries, and a 30‑day SEC yield for MUB in the vicinity of 3.10% (iShares fact sheet, Mar 26, 2026; Yahoo Finance, Mar 28, 2026). By contrast, VGIT reports an expense ratio of 0.04% and a shorter effective duration, characteristics that make it behave differently through the interest‑rate cycle (Vanguard, Mar 27, 2026). Those differences are not just academic: year‑on‑year performance through late March 2026 shows divergent returns driven by credit exposure and duration — a clear prompt for institutional allocators to reassess short‑to‑intermediate fixed‑income sleeve decisions. This piece examines the data, parses sector implications, evaluates risk tradeoffs and offers the Fazen Capital perspective on where each ETF sits within a broader fixed‑income toolkit.

Context

MUB tracks a broad, national, AMT‑free municipal bond index and has historically contained thousands of individual issues spanning general obligation and revenue bonds, state programs and local credits. That breadth contrasts with VGIT’s mandate to replicate the Bloomberg U.S. Treasury 3–10 Year Index, a universe composed exclusively of sovereign obligations with negligible credit risk. The practical outcome is that MUB typically displays a wider dispersion of credit spreads and idiosyncratic issuer risk, while VGIT predominantly carries duration and term premium exposure tied to U.S. Treasury yields (iShares and Vanguard fund descriptions, Mar 2026).

Institutional investors treat the two ETFs differently because their cash‑flow and tax treatment profiles diverge: MUB offers federally tax‑exempt income for U.S. taxable investors and often reports a positive municipal yield premium relative to shorter‑dated Treasuries on a tax‑equivalent basis; VGIT is a tax‑able Treasury vehicle whose income is fully subject to federal taxation but offers near‑default‑free principal protection. Those distinctions have practical implications for asset‑liability matching, cash‑flow planning, and tax‑sensitive mandates, particularly with rate volatility elevated in 2025–26 (market reports, Mar 2026).

From an asset‑allocation standpoint, the debate is not simply muni vs treasury but rather a tradeoff between broader credit exposure and the concentrated interest‑rate sensitivity of Treasuries. The choice informs not only expected return but also correlation behavior with equities, inflation expectations and state‑level fiscal stress episodes that can drive muni spread widening. These are central considerations for CIOs and fixed‑income strategists rebalancing portfolios ahead of potential Federal Reserve policy moves.

Data Deep Dive

Three specific data points crystallize the distinction between MUB and VGIT. First, fund holdings: MUB reported roughly 2,500 muni issues in its portfolio as of late March 2026 versus VGIT’s concentrated Treasury strip (Yahoo Finance, Mar 28, 2026). Second, yield and fees: MUB’s reported 30‑day SEC yield was approximately 3.10% (iShares, Mar 26, 2026), while VGIT’s headline expense ratio was 0.04% (Vanguard, Mar 27, 2026). Third, duration: market reports placed MUB’s effective duration near 6.2 years versus VGIT’s shorter duration closer to 4.8 years, a gap that maps directly into differing sensitivity to 10‑year Treasury moves (Yahoo Finance, Mar 28, 2026).

Performance comparisons to late March 2026 show differentiated outcomes. Over the previous 12 months, reported returns for MUB trailed VGIT modestly — a function of municipal spread widening during risk episodes — with figures reported at roughly -2.3% for MUB versus -1.7% for VGIT (12‑month return, Yahoo Finance, Mar 28, 2026). These year‑on‑year differentials illustrate how credit spread behavior and duration interact: when Treasury yields rise sharply, VGIT’s shorter duration cushions losses; when muni spreads widen in credit stress, MUB underperforms. Absolute AUM numbers also contextualize capacity: MUB’s assets under management were reported in the low double‑digit billions (≈$11.5bn) with VGIT larger in scale (≈$18.2bn) as of late March 2026, which affects liquidity and market‑impact considerations for large‑ticket trades (fund fact sheets, Mar 2026).

Finally, tax and after‑tax return calculations alter the comparative economics for taxable investors. On a tax‑equivalent basis — converting muni yield to a taxable equivalent using marginal tax rates — MUB’s yield advantage narrows for high‑bracket investors and can invert for lower tax brackets. That calculation is dynamic: it depends on municipal coupon composition, state tax treatment, and the investor’s federal and state marginal tax rates.

Sector Implications

For municipal finance and the broader fixed‑income sector, MUB’s breadth provides exposure to state and local fiscal dynamics that are not reflected in Treasury products like VGIT. In late 2025 and early 2026, several states faced widening pension gaps and revenue cyclical pressures that contributed to selective spread widening in certain municipal credits; a broad muni ETF like MUB transmits some of that dispersion to fund investors. That means sector‑level catalysts — transportation revenue trends, property‑tax receipts, and state-level budget balances — map into ETF performance in ways that Treasuries do not. Institutional investors with state exposure or concentrated municipal liabilities should therefore evaluate the credit composition of MUB beyond headline duration metrics.

For liability‑driven investment (LDI) strategies and pension funds, VGIT’s treasury‑focused profile makes it a more precise tool for pure interest‑rate hedging across the intermediate curve. In contrast, MUB can be useful where liabilities are implicitly or explicitly linked to municipal cash flows, or where taxable investors seek potentially higher after‑tax income. The choice between these ETFs is therefore as much about matching liability characteristics as it is about return expectations and fee sensitivity.

From an active vs passive perspective, MUB’s complexity — thousands of issues with varied liquidity — creates opportunities for active managers to add value through credit selection and tax‑loss harvesting, whereas VGIT’s Treasury‑only composition limits active alpha prospects but maximizes tracking to sovereign rates. That differentiation informs how allocators use these ETFs inside multi‑manager fixed‑income sleeves and overlay strategies.

Risk Assessment

Credit risk is the principal divergence. MUB embeds exposure to issuer‑specific default and downgrade risk, albeit at relatively low historical incidence for investment‑grade municipal indexes. A concentrated adverse event — for example, a major local tax base shock or a high‑profile revenue bond default — can produce asymmetric drawdowns in municipals that are absent in Treasuries. Liquidity risk also differs: while VGIT trades in a deep, high‑quality market, MUB’s underlying issues vary materially in secondary market liquidity, and large redemptions can impose execution costs for large institutional investors.

Interest‑rate risk, while present in both funds, is mediated by different channels. VGIT’s returns are primarily a function of Treasury curve movements; duration alone explains most historical return variance. MUB’s returns are a compound of duration and spread risk: a parallel move in Treasuries will impact both, but a spread widening driven by credit‑specific news will disproportionately affect MUB. Correlation dynamics therefore shift: MUB can decouple from Treasury moves during municipal‑specific stress while tracking them during broad rate cycles.

Operational and tax risks also warrant mention. MUB’s municipal structure can introduce complexities around state tax exposure and AMT treatment for certain holdings; institutional investors with cross‑state portfolios must evaluate after‑tax return implications. Meanwhile, VGIT’s simplicity reduces operational friction and tax reporting complexity. Both ETFs carry management and tracking risks — even small differences in expense ratio (e.g., 0.04% for VGIT vs 0.07% for many muni ETFs historically) compound over time for long‑term holdings and should be included in total return projections (Vanguard and iShares fact sheets, Mar 2026).

Fazen Capital Perspective

A contrarian but practical insight for institutional allocators is to view MUB not as a pure substitute for Treasuries but as a diversification instrument that can enhance carry while adding non‑correlated beta during certain economic regimes. When municipal fundamentals remain stable, the additional yield and tax advantages of a broad muni ETF can produce attractive tax‑adjusted returns versus a Treasury sleeve. However, this is conditional: in regimes where municipal spreads widen materially — as occurred in episodic stress periods historically — the muni sleeve can underperform for extended intervals. Consequently, a blended approach that separates duration hedging (VGIT or Treasury futures) from credit exposure (MUB or active municipal strategies) can deliver clearer risk budgeting and reduce unintended portfolio concentration.

It is also worth noting that fee differentials, while small in absolute terms (e.g., 0.04% vs 0.07%), can alter manager selection for scale mandates. For large‑scale institutional flows, liquidity and AUM of the ETF matter: VGIT’s larger AUM can reduce trading friction for enormous rebalances, whereas MUB’s more fragmented underlying may favor using an active municipal manager for high‑notional implementations. Institutions should therefore stress‑test both ETFs within scenario analyses — including 100‑bp parallel moves, 50‑bp muni spread widening, and state‑specific shock scenarios — to quantify worst‑case outcomes.

For further fixed‑income thematic analysis and tactical ideas on portfolio construction, see our fixed income insights and recent market commentary.

Outlook

Over the next 6–12 months, macro drivers that will determine relative performance include Federal Reserve communications on terminal rates, inflation trajectories, and any developments in state fiscal positions as municipal revenue cycles digest economic growth changes. If Treasury yields move higher but municipal spreads remain contained, we expect VGIT to experience a more predictable duration‑driven path while MUB may deliver better tax‑adjusted carry for taxable investors. Conversely, if spread widening accelerates due to localized fiscal stress or risk aversion, MUB’s relative performance could lag materially.

From a structural perspective, we expect ETF adoption and liquidity to continue favoring large Treasury products, but the municipal ETF space is evolving: improved indexing, laddered strategies, and active ETF wrappers are reducing some of MUB’s traditional implementation frictions. Active municipal managers may capture opportunities in smaller‑issue credit selection that the broad index ETF cannot.

Institutional allocators should therefore keep a bifurcated playbook: use Treasury‑centric instruments like VGIT for pure duration management, and deploy muni exposure (via MUB or active mandates) where tax sensitivity, state exposure, or yield pickup justifies incremental credit risk.

Bottom Line

MUB and VGIT serve distinct institutional roles: MUB provides broader credit exposure and tax‑sensitive income (≈3.10% 30‑day SEC yield, Mar 26, 2026), while VGIT offers low‑cost, Treasury‑only duration exposure (0.04% expense ratio, Mar 27, 2026). Allocators should separate duration management from credit allocation when integrating these ETFs into multi‑asset strategies.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

FAQ

Q: For a taxable institutional account, how does MUB’s tax advantage practically compare to VGIT? A: On a tax‑equivalent basis, MUB’s 30‑day SEC yield of roughly 3.10% (iShares, Mar 26, 2026) may translate to a higher or comparable taxable yield depending on the investor’s marginal tax rate. High‑bracket taxable investors often find municipal yields more attractive after conversion; lower‑bracket entities may prefer the simplicity of Treasuries. Always run tax‑equivalent yield calculations using your specific marginal rates.

Q: Can large institutional trades affect liquidity differently between MUB and VGIT? A: Yes. VGIT’s Treasury composition and larger AUM (reported ≈$18.2bn, Mar 2026) generally enables lower market‑impact execution for very large trades. MUB’s underlying universe of ~2,500 municipal issues (Yahoo Finance, Mar 28, 2026) includes many less liquid bonds, so large institutional implementations may warrant staged execution or use of block trading desks and primary market purchases.

Q: Historically, which ETF is more resilient in stress episodes? A: Treasuries (VGIT) are historically more resilient on a credit basis because they carry sovereign backing; municipals (MUB) can underperform during credit stress or sharp spread widening. That said, municipals have tightened intervals and offered superior carry in stable regimes. Historical performance should be considered alongside present valuations and fiscal conditions.