AAAU vs. GBIL
AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AAAU returned 18.60%/yr vs 3.32%/yr for GBIL. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AAAU charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.
Performance
AAAU vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AAAU achieves a 3.83% return, which is significantly higher than GBIL's 1.44% return.
AAAU
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- 3.83%
- 6M
- 6.34%
- 1Y
- 32.55%
- 3Y*
- 31.47%
- 5Y*
- 18.60%
- 10Y*
- —
GBIL
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.29%
- YTD
- 1.44%
- 6M
- 1.75%
- 1Y
- 3.89%
- 3Y*
- 4.64%
- 5Y*
- 3.32%
- 10Y*
- —
AAAU vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 3.83% | 64.06% | 26.91% | 12.96% | -0.50% | -4.01% | 25.02% | 18.17% | 9.20% |
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF | 1.44% | 4.12% | 5.24% | 4.91% | 1.05% | -0.08% | 0.79% | 2.31% | 0.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between AAAU and GBIL is 0.08, 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 | 0.08 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018 | 0.11 |
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
AAAU vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank
AAAU
GBIL
AAAU vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). 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.
| AAAU | GBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -15.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -100.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 39.22 | -37.98 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.71 | 195.39 | -193.68 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.21 | 1,656.50 | -1,652.29 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AAAU | GBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.24 | 16.89 | -15.65 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.05 | 5.78 | -4.73 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.09 | 4.88 | -3.78 |
Drawdowns
AAAU vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AAAU drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAAU and GBIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AAAU | GBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.63% | -0.76% | -20.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.13% | -0.02% | -19.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.13% | -0.76% | -18.37% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.94% | -0.76% | -20.18% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.97% | 0.00% | -16.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.19% | -0.04% | -6.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.76% | 0.00% | +7.76% |
Volatility
AAAU vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a higher volatility of 5.51% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.04%. This indicates that AAAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AAAU | GBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.51% | 0.04% | +5.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.94% | 0.14% | +22.80% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.33% | 0.23% | +26.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.83% | 0.58% | +17.25% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.99% | 0.47% | +16.52% |
AAAU vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
AAAU has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than GBIL's 0.12% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
AAAU vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison
AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF | 3.74% | 4.02% | 4.93% | 4.77% | 1.37% | 0.00% | 0.81% | 2.20% | 1.70% | 0.74% | 0.11% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AAAU and GBIL have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
AAAU has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAAU dropped -21.63% vs GBIL's -0.76%.
On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 18.60% vs 3.32% for GBIL. On fees, GBIL is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, AAAU has performed better with a 18.60% return vs 3.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for AAAU.
GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.
AAAU is categorized as Gold, while GBIL is Government Bonds. AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price, while GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for AAAU and 0.12% for GBIL.
GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 vs 1.24), 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.
Find the right allocation for AAAU and GBIL
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