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. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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 2.94% return, which is significantly higher than GLDB's -7.90% return.
BAR
- 1D
- -1.02%
- 1M
- -1.62%
- YTD
- 2.94%
- 6M
- 5.50%
- 1Y
- 32.26%
- 3Y*
- 31.38%
- 5Y*
- 18.41%
- 10Y*
- —
GLDB
- 1D
- -2.17%
- 1M
- -7.55%
- YTD
- -7.90%
- 6M
- -6.06%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BAR vs. GLDB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | 2.94% | 5.04% |
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF | -7.90% | -3.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAR and GLDB is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2025 | 0.79 |
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
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 ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.69 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.19 | — | — |
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
| BAR | GLDB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.23 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.03 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.90 | -0.45 | +1.35 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAR | GLDB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.53% | -27.36% | +5.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.19% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.19% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.91% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.72% | -26.71% | +8.99% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.45% | -13.44% | +6.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.72% | — | — |
Volatility
BAR vs. GLDB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAR | GLDB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.46% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.03% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.43% | 39.96% | -13.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.90% | 39.96% | -22.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.38% | 39.96% | -23.58% |
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 0.21%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF | 0.21% | 0.19% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BAR and GLDB have a correlation of 0.79, 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 0.21%, 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