CMBS vs. GBF
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) and iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF).
CMBS and GBF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CMBS is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index. It was launched on Feb 14, 2012. GBF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index. It was launched on Jan 11, 2007. Both CMBS and GBF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CMBS or GBF.
Correlation
The correlation between CMBS and GBF is 0.52, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Performance
CMBS vs. GBF - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
CMBS:
1.58
GBF:
0.85
CMBS:
2.42
GBF:
1.26
CMBS:
1.29
GBF:
1.15
CMBS:
0.78
GBF:
0.31
CMBS:
6.50
GBF:
2.39
CMBS:
1.22%
GBF:
1.90%
CMBS:
5.04%
GBF:
5.38%
CMBS:
-15.87%
GBF:
-19.67%
CMBS:
-3.95%
GBF:
-9.78%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMBS achieves a 5.29% return, which is significantly higher than GBF's 2.10% return. Over the past 10 years, CMBS has outperformed GBF with an annualized return of 1.94%, while GBF has yielded a comparatively lower 1.42% annualized return.
CMBS
5.29%
1.49%
3.35%
6.92%
0.79%
1.94%
GBF
2.10%
0.82%
2.19%
3.30%
-0.28%
1.42%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CMBS vs. GBF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMBS has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than GBF's 0.20% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CMBS vs. GBF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) and iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF). 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.
Dividends
CMBS vs. GBF - Dividend Comparison
CMBS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.24%, less than GBF's 3.90% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 3.24% | 2.97% | 2.65% | 2.46% | 2.83% | 2.74% | 2.70% | 2.50% | 2.30% | 2.31% | 2.15% | 2.00% |
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.90% | 3.03% | 2.13% | 1.22% | 1.64% | 2.64% | 2.59% | 2.31% | 2.09% | 2.04% | 2.08% | 2.37% |
Drawdowns
CMBS vs. GBF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMBS drawdown since its inception was -15.87%, smaller than the maximum GBF drawdown of -19.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMBS and GBF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CMBS vs. GBF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) is 1.04%, while iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) has a volatility of 1.45%. This indicates that CMBS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.