CBND.L vs. IB01.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and IB01.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both Government Bonds funds - CBND.L tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index while IB01.L tracks the ICE U.S. Treasury Short Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CBND.L returned 2.85%/yr vs 3.29%/yr for IB01.L. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBND.L charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IB01.L.

Performance

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) and iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IB01.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBND.L achieves a 4.87% return, which is significantly higher than IB01.L's 1.83% return.

CBND.L

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.02%
• 6M: 4.64%
• YTD: 4.87%
• 1Y: 7.44%
• 3Y*: 5.57%
• 5Y*: 2.85%
• 10Y*: —

IB01.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• 6M: 1.77%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	4.87%	5.04%	4.67%	1.28%	-5.17%	7.61%	8.70%	3.08%
IB01.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc)	1.83%	4.34%	5.25%	4.92%	1.08%	-0.85%	0.88%	0.34%

Correlation

The correlation between CBND.L and IB01.L is 0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019	0.06

Return for Risk

CBND.L vs. IB01.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBND.L

CBND.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

IB01.L

IB01.L Risk / Return Rank: 100
IB01.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
IB01.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
IB01.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
IB01.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IB01.L 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.

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) and iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IB01.L). 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.

	CBND.L	IB01.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	11.93	-9.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.57	37.36	-33.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	8.35	-6.88
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.45	114.58	-107.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.48	560.87	-542.39

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBND.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is lower than the IB01.L Sharpe Ratio of 11.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBND.L and IB01.L, 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

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBND.L drawdown since its inception was -11.48%, which is greater than IB01.L's maximum drawdown of -1.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBND.L and IB01.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBND.L	IB01.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.48%	-1.28%	-10.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.99%	-0.03%	-0.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.66%	-0.09%	-3.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.48%	-1.12%	-10.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	0.00%	-0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.80%	-0.23%	-2.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.40%	0.01%	+0.39%

Volatility

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) has a higher volatility of 0.89% compared to iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IB01.L) at 0.08%. This indicates that CBND.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IB01.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBND.L	IB01.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.89%	0.08%	+0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.58%	0.22%	+2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.11%	0.33%	+2.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.02%	0.54%	+4.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.94%	0.78%	+4.16%

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBND.L has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than IB01.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CBND.L vs. IB01.L - Dividend Comparison

CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, while IB01.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.04%	2.20%	2.45%	2.54%	2.72%	2.52%	1.87%
IB01.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBND.L and IB01.L in my portfolio?

CBND.L and IB01.L have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CBND.L or IB01.L?

On fees, IB01.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBND.L or IB01.L?

IB01.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for CBND.L.

What is the main difference between CBND.L and IB01.L?

CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while IB01.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury Short Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for CBND.L and 0.07% for IB01.L.