CBND.L vs. IBTU.L
CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and IBTU.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both Government Bonds funds - CBND.L tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index while IBTU.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 3.46%/yr for IBTU.L. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBND.L charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTU.L.
Performance
CBND.L vs. IBTU.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBND.L achieves a 4.87% return, which is significantly higher than IBTU.L's 1.76% 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*
- —
IBTU.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.40%
- 6M
- 1.76%
- YTD
- 1.76%
- 1Y
- 3.93%
- 3Y*
- 4.63%
- 5Y*
- 3.46%
- 10Y*
- —
CBND.L vs. IBTU.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% |
IBTU.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.76% | 4.33% | 5.31% | 4.92% | 1.05% | 0.10% | 0.88% | 0.20% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBND.L and IBTU.L is -0.06, 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 | -0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.02 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019 | 0.04 |
The correlation between CBND.L and IBTU.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
CBND.L vs. IBTU.L — Risk / Return Rank
CBND.L
IBTU.L
CBND.L vs. IBTU.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 USD (Dist) (IBTU.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 | IBTU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 3.84 | -2.37 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.45 | 19.33 | -11.89 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.48 | 94.97 | -76.49 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CBND.L vs. IBTU.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBND.L drawdown since its inception was -11.48%, which is greater than IBTU.L's maximum drawdown of -0.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBND.L and IBTU.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBND.L | IBTU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.48% | -0.72% | -10.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.99% | -0.20% | -0.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.66% | -0.20% | -3.46% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.48% | -0.40% | -11.08% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.21% | 0.00% | -0.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.80% | -0.06% | -2.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.40% | 0.04% | +0.36% |
Volatility
CBND.L vs. IBTU.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 USD (Dist) (IBTU.L) at 0.28%. This indicates that CBND.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBND.L | IBTU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.89% | 0.28% | +0.61% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.58% | 0.77% | +1.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.11% | 1.11% | +2.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.02% | 1.02% | +4.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.94% | 0.95% | +3.99% |
CBND.L vs. IBTU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBND.L has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTU.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. IBTU.L - Dividend Comparison
CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, less than IBTU.L's 4.05% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% | 0.00% |
IBTU.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 4.05% | 4.43% | 6.82% | 3.99% | 0.44% | 0.10% | 1.28% | 1.21% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CBND.L and IBTU.L have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBTU.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBTU.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for CBND.L.
CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while IBTU.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 IBTU.L.
Find the right allocation for CBND.L and IBTU.L
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