BBLB vs. GBIL

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

BBLB (JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both Government Bonds funds - BBLB tracks the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index while GBIL tracks the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BBLB returned -0.80%/yr vs 4.55%/yr for GBIL. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BBLB charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.

Performance

BBLB vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF (BBLB) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BBLB achieves a -2.53% return, which is significantly lower than GBIL's 2.03% return.

BBLB

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: -2.86%
• 6M: -2.32%
• YTD: -2.53%
• 1Y: -1.51%
• 3Y*: -0.80%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -2.81%

GBIL

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.31%
• 6M: 1.74%
• YTD: 2.03%
• 1Y: 3.76%
• 3Y*: 4.55%
• 5Y*: 3.44%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.30%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BBLB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF	$43.45K	$41.67K	$60.66K
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	$54.21M	$51.93M	$68.82M

BBLB vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BBLB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF	-2.53%	4.26%	-7.84%	-2.80%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	2.03%	4.12%	5.24%	3.60%

Correlation

The correlation between BBLB and GBIL is 0.10, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 20, 2023	0.15

Return for Risk

BBLB vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BBLB

BBLB Risk / Return Rank: 8
BBLB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
BBLB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
BBLB Omega Ratio Rank: 7
BBLB Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
BBLB Martin Ratio Rank: 8

GBIL

GBIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
GBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BBLB vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF (BBLB) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). 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.

	BBLB	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.16	18.16	-18.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.17	151.15	-151.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	93.38	-92.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.20	188.95	-189.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.42	2,263.03	-2,263.45

BBLB vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBLB Sharpe Ratio is -0.16, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 18.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBLB and GBIL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BBLB vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBLB drawdown since its inception was -21.06%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBLB and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBLB	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.06%	-0.76%	-20.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.76%	-0.02%	-7.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.67%	-0.76%	-13.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.92%	0.00%	-10.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.94%	-0.04%	-8.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.58%	0.00%	+3.58%

Volatility

BBLB vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF (BBLB) has a higher volatility of 2.67% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.06%. This indicates that BBLB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BBLB	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.67%	0.06%	+2.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.95%	0.14%	+6.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.26%	0.21%	+9.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.62%	0.58%	+13.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.62%	0.47%	+13.15%

BBLB vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBLB has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than GBIL's 0.12% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BBLB vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

BBLB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.99%, more than GBIL's 3.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BBLB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 20+ Year ETF	4.99%	5.03%	5.34%	2.82%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	3.67%	4.02%	4.93%	4.77%	1.37%	0.00%	0.81%	2.20%	1.70%	0.74%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BBLB and GBIL in my portfolio?

BBLB and GBIL have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BBLB or GBIL?

BBLB has higher volatility (2.67%) compared to GBIL (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBLB dropped -21.06% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, BBLB or GBIL?

On 3-year performance, GBIL leads with 4.55% vs -0.80% for BBLB. On fees, BBLB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BBLB or GBIL?

Over the 3-year period, GBIL has performed better with a 4.55% return vs -0.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BBLB or GBIL?

BBLB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for GBIL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BBLB or GBIL?

BBLB has the higher dividend yield at 4.99%, compared with 3.67% for GBIL.

What is the main difference between BBLB and GBIL?

BBLB tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, while GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for BBLB and 0.12% for GBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (18.16 vs -0.16), 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.