BAR vs. GLDB
BAR (GraniteShares Gold Trust) and GLDB (Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAR is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLDB is a Nontraditional Bonds fund tracking the Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BAR charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for GLDB.
Performance
BAR vs. GLDB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BAR achieves a -6.10% return, which is significantly higher than GLDB's -19.44% return.
BAR
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- -1.60%
- 6M
- -12.98%
- YTD
- -6.10%
- 1Y
- 20.54%
- 3Y*
- 27.61%
- 5Y*
- 17.26%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 13.26%
GLDB
- 1D
- 0.51%
- 1M
- -0.84%
- 6M
- -19.59%
- YTD
- -19.44%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $8.15M | $7.49M | $9.63M | |
| $490.82K | $360.41K | $396.53K |
BAR vs. GLDB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | -6.10% | 4.73% |
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF | -19.44% | -3.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAR and GLDB is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2025 | 0.82 |
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
BAR vs. GLDB — Risk / Return Rank
BAR
GLDB
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| BAR | GLDB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.78 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.68 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BAR vs. GLDB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAR drawdown since its inception was -26.32%, smaller than the maximum GLDB drawdown of -38.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAR and GLDB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAR | GLDB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.32% | -38.30% | +11.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.32% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.32% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.32% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.94% | -35.89% | +10.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.76% | -17.83% | +11.07% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.26% | — | — |
Volatility
BAR vs. GLDB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAR | GLDB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.98% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.76% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.90% | 38.95% | -11.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.38% | 38.95% | -20.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.61% | 38.95% | -22.34% |
BAR vs. GLDB - Expense Ratio Comparison
BAR has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than GLDB's 0.79% expense ratio.
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 0.24%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF | 0.24% | 0.19% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BAR and GLDB have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BAR is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BAR is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLDB.
GLDB has the higher dividend yield at 0.24%, compared with 0.00% for BAR.
BAR is categorized as Gold, while GLDB is Nontraditional Bonds. BAR tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLDB tracks Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Strategy Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for BAR and 0.79% for GLDB.
Find the right allocation for BAR and GLDB
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