BAR vs. GLDB

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB).

BAR and GLDB are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BAR is a passively managed fund by GraniteShares that tracks the performance of the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). It was launched on Aug 31, 2017. GLDB is a passively managed fund by Strategy Shares that tracks the performance of the Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross. It was launched on May 17, 2021. Both BAR and GLDB are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

BAR vs. GLDB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

BAR vs. GLDB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust	8.57%	5.04%
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	-2.60%	-3.51%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAR achieves a 8.57% return, which is significantly higher than GLDB's -2.60% return.

BAR

• 1D: 3.76%
• 1M: -11.05%
• YTD: 8.57%
• 6M: 21.20%
• 1Y: 49.58%
• 3Y*: 33.22%
• 5Y*: 21.84%
• 10Y*: —

GLDB

• 1D: 3.72%
• 1M: -6.76%
• YTD: -2.60%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BAR vs. GLDB - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAR has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than GLDB's 0.79% expense ratio.

GLDB

Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF

BAR

GraniteShares Gold Trust

Return for Risk

BAR vs. GLDB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BAR

BAR Risk / Return Rank: 87
BAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
BAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BAR Omega Ratio Rank: 86
BAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
BAR Martin Ratio Rank: 87

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BAR vs. GLDB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB). 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.

	BAR	GLDB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.80	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.99	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BAR	GLDB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.80	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.97	-0.31	+1.27

Correlation

The correlation between BAR and GLDB is 0.77, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

BAR vs. GLDB - Dividend Comparison

BAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.20%.

	TTM	2025
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust	0.00%	0.00%
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	0.20%	0.19%

Drawdowns

BAR vs. GLDB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAR drawdown since its inception was -21.53%, smaller than the maximum GLDB drawdown of -27.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAR and GLDB.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAR	GLDB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.53%	-27.36%	+5.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.19%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.22%	-22.48%	+9.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.29%	-10.62%	+4.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.19%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BAR	GLDB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.01%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.13%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.63%	44.68%	-17.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.65%	44.68%	-27.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.30%	44.68%	-28.38%