BBSB vs. GBIL

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BBSB (JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both Government Bonds funds - BBSB tracks the ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 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, BBSB returned 4.15%/yr vs 4.64%/yr for GBIL. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BBSB charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.

Performance

BBSB vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF (BBSB) 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, BBSB achieves a 0.55% return, which is significantly lower than GBIL's 1.44% return.

BBSB

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.13%
• YTD: 0.55%
• 6M: 0.88%
• 1Y: 3.32%
• 3Y*: 4.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GBIL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 1.44%
• 6M: 1.75%
• 1Y: 3.89%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

BBSB vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BBSB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF	0.55%	5.12%	4.00%	2.56%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.44%	4.12%	5.24%	3.55%

Correlation

The correlation between BBSB and GBIL is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2023	0.32

Return for Risk

BBSB vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

BBSB

BBSB Risk / Return Rank: 84
BBSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
BBSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
BBSB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
BBSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
BBSB Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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) 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.

BBSB vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF (BBSB) 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.

	BBSB	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	16.89	-14.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.47	102.35	-97.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	39.22	-37.68
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.89	195.39	-191.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.07	1,656.50	-1,640.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BBSB vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBSB Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 16.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBSB 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BBSB	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64	16.89	-14.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.36	4.88	-2.51

Drawdowns

BBSB vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBSB drawdown since its inception was -1.57%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBSB and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBSB	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.57%	-0.76%	-0.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.86%	-0.02%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.96%	-0.76%	-0.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.18%	0.00%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.31%	-0.04%	-0.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.21%	0.00%	+0.21%

Volatility

BBSB vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF (BBSB) has a higher volatility of 0.36% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.04%. This indicates that BBSB'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

	BBSB	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.36%	0.04%	+0.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.85%	0.14%	+0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.27%	0.23%	+1.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.66%	0.58%	+1.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.66%	0.47%	+1.19%

BBSB vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBSB 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

BBSB vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

BBSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.81%, more than GBIL's 3.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BBSB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF	3.81%	3.69%	4.84%	3.50%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	3.74%	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 BBSB and GBIL in my portfolio?

BBSB and GBIL have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BBSB or GBIL?

BBSB has higher volatility (0.36%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBSB dropped -1.57% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, BBSB or GBIL?

On 3-year performance, GBIL leads with 4.64% vs 4.15% for BBSB. On fees, BBSB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BBSB or GBIL?

Over the 3-year period, GBIL has performed better with a 4.64% return vs 4.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BBSB or GBIL?

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

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

BBSB has the higher dividend yield at 3.81%, compared with 3.74% for GBIL.

What is the main difference between BBSB and GBIL?

BBSB tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 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 BBSB and 0.12% for GBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 vs 2.64), 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.