BAR vs. IAUI
BAR (GraniteShares Gold Trust) and IAUI (NEOS Gold High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAR is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while IAUI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Neos. BAR is passively managed, while IAUI is actively managed. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. BAR charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.78%/yr for IAUI.
Performance
BAR vs. IAUI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BAR achieves a 2.94% return, which is significantly higher than IAUI's 1.64% return.
BAR
- 1D
- -1.02%
- 1M
- -1.62%
- YTD
- 2.94%
- 6M
- 5.50%
- 1Y
- 32.26%
- 3Y*
- 31.38%
- 5Y*
- 18.41%
- 10Y*
- —
IAUI
- 1D
- -0.88%
- 1M
- -1.01%
- YTD
- 1.64%
- 6M
- 4.00%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BAR vs. IAUI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | 2.94% | 28.33% |
IAUI NEOS Gold High Income ETF | 1.64% | 20.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAR and IAUI is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2025 | 0.96 |
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. IAUI — Risk / Return Rank
BAR
IAUI
BAR vs. IAUI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and NEOS Gold High Income ETF (IAUI). 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 | IAUI | 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 | IAUI | 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 | 1.13 | -0.23 |
Drawdowns
BAR vs. IAUI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAR drawdown since its inception was -21.53%, which is greater than IAUI's maximum drawdown of -16.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAR and IAUI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAR | IAUI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.53% | -16.88% | -4.65% |
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% | -13.80% | -3.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.45% | -3.45% | -3.00% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.72% | — | — |
Volatility
BAR vs. IAUI - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAR | IAUI | 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% | 20.31% | +6.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.90% | 20.31% | -2.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.38% | 20.31% | -3.93% |
BAR vs. IAUI - Expense Ratio Comparison
BAR has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than IAUI's 0.78% expense ratio.
Dividends
BAR vs. IAUI - Dividend Comparison
BAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IAUI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.65%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IAUI NEOS Gold High Income ETF | 12.65% | 6.88% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, BAR and IAUI move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
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 0.78% for IAUI.
IAUI has the higher dividend yield at 12.65%, compared with 0.00% for BAR.
BAR is categorized as Gold, while IAUI is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for BAR and 0.78% for IAUI.
Find the right allocation for BAR and IAUI
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