PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CBND.L vs. T3GB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CBND.L vs. T3GB.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 Invesco US Treasury Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Dist (T3GB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CBND.L is traded in USD, while T3GB.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the T3GB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBND.L achieves a 4.87% return, which is significantly higher than T3GB.L's 1.32% 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*

T3GB.L

1D
1.23%
1M
1.04%
6M
1.39%
YTD
1.32%
1Y
4.39%
3Y*
5.17%
5Y*
1.12%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CBND.L vs. T3GB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
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%
T3GB.L
Invesco US Treasury Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Dist
1.32%12.86%2.06%8.80%-14.74%-1.80%5.75%2.29%

Correlation

The correlation between CBND.L and T3GB.L is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.37

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019

0.36

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. T3GB.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: 9292
Overall Rank
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

T3GB.L
T3GB.L Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
T3GB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
T3GB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
T3GB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
T3GB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
T3GB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank
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. T3GB.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 Invesco US Treasury Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Dist (T3GB.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.LT3GB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.61

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.11

+0.35

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.45

0.95

+6.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

18.48

1.94

+16.54

CBND.L vs. T3GB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBND.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is higher than the T3GB.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBND.L and T3GB.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CBND.L vs. T3GB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBND.L drawdown since its inception was -11.48%, smaller than the maximum T3GB.L drawdown of -29.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBND.L and T3GB.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CBND.LT3GB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-11.48%

-29.14%

+17.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.99%

-4.59%

+3.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.66%

-9.45%

+5.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.48%

-27.85%

+16.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.21%

-1.52%

+1.31%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.80%

-7.76%

+4.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.40%

2.26%

-1.86%

Volatility

CBND.L vs. T3GB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) is 0.89%, while Invesco US Treasury Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Dist (T3GB.L) has a volatility of 2.18%. This indicates that CBND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than T3GB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CBND.LT3GB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.89%

2.18%

-1.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.58%

5.28%

-2.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.11%

7.01%

-3.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.02%

9.24%

-4.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.94%

9.35%

-4.41%

CBND.L vs. T3GB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBND.L has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than T3GB.L's 0.10% 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. T3GB.L - Dividend Comparison

CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, less than T3GB.L's 3.84% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
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%
T3GB.L
Invesco US Treasury Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Dist
3.84%3.95%4.36%4.05%1.98%0.28%1.15%0.81%

Frequently Asked Questions


CBND.L and T3GB.L have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, T3GB.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

T3GB.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for CBND.L.

CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index, while T3GB.L tracks Invesco US Treasury Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Dist. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for CBND.L and 0.10% for T3GB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CBND.L and T3GB.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