AAAU vs. GHYB
AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) and GHYB (Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while GHYB is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AAAU returned 17.72%/yr vs 3.96%/yr for GHYB. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AAAU charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for GHYB.
Performance
AAAU vs. GHYB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AAAU achieves a 0.05% return, which is significantly lower than GHYB's 0.99% return.
AAAU
- 1D
- -3.64%
- 1M
- -8.02%
- YTD
- 0.05%
- 6M
- 2.64%
- 1Y
- 28.42%
- 3Y*
- 29.80%
- 5Y*
- 17.72%
- 10Y*
- —
GHYB
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- -0.27%
- YTD
- 0.99%
- 6M
- 1.23%
- 1Y
- 6.85%
- 3Y*
- 8.49%
- 5Y*
- 3.96%
- 10Y*
- —
AAAU vs. GHYB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 0.05% | 64.06% | 26.91% | 12.96% | -0.50% | -4.01% | 25.02% | 18.17% | 9.20% |
GHYB Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 0.99% | 9.38% | 7.76% | 12.13% | -11.02% | 3.21% | 6.38% | 14.55% | -3.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between AAAU and GHYB is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018 | 0.17 |
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. GHYB — Risk / Return Rank
AAAU
GHYB
AAAU vs. GHYB - 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 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (GHYB). 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 | GHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.89 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.45 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.38 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.43 | 2.57 | -1.15 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.62 | 11.76 | -8.13 |
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 | GHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.07 | 1.97 | -0.89 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.99 | 0.52 | +0.48 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.06 | 0.54 | +0.51 |
Drawdowns
AAAU vs. GHYB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AAAU drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, roughly equal to the maximum GHYB drawdown of -21.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAAU and GHYB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AAAU | GHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.63% | -21.48% | -0.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -20.00% | -2.67% | -17.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.00% | -4.66% | -15.34% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.94% | -16.08% | -4.86% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -20.00% | -0.53% | -19.47% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.19% | -2.57% | -3.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.86% | 0.58% | +7.28% |
Volatility
AAAU vs. GHYB - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a higher volatility of 5.66% compared to Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (GHYB) at 1.09%. This indicates that AAAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GHYB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AAAU | GHYB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.66% | 1.09% | +4.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.25% | 2.74% | +20.51% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.59% | 3.52% | +23.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.90% | 7.69% | +10.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.04% | 8.28% | +8.76% |
AAAU vs. GHYB - Expense Ratio Comparison
AAAU has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than GHYB's 0.34% expense ratio.
Dividends
AAAU vs. GHYB - Dividend Comparison
AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GHYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.82%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
GHYB Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 6.82% | 7.00% | 6.65% | 6.20% | 5.67% | 4.46% | 4.75% | 5.57% | 5.68% | 1.45% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AAAU and GHYB have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
AAAU has higher volatility (5.66%) compared to GHYB (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAAU dropped -21.63% vs GHYB's -21.48%.
On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 17.72% vs 3.96% for GHYB. On fees, AAAU is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, GHYB has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. 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 17.72% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AAAU is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for GHYB.
GHYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.82%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.
AAAU is categorized as Gold, while GHYB is High Yield Bonds. AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price, while GHYB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for AAAU and 0.34% for GHYB.
GHYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.07), 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 GHYB
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