CMBS vs. GBF
CMBS (iShares CMBS ETF) and GBF (iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMBS is a Mortgage Backed Securities fund tracking the Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index, while GBF is a Intermediate Core Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CMBS returned 1.89%/yr vs 1.26%/yr for GBF. Their 0.51 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CMBS charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for GBF.
Performance
CMBS vs. GBF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMBS achieves a 0.13% return, which is significantly higher than GBF's -0.41% return. Over the past 10 years, CMBS has outperformed GBF with an annualized return of 1.89%, while GBF has yielded a comparatively lower 1.26% annualized return.
CMBS
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- -0.58%
- 6M
- -0.36%
- YTD
- 0.13%
- 1Y
- 2.80%
- 3Y*
- 5.28%
- 5Y*
- 0.51%
- 10Y*
- 1.89%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.34%
GBF
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- -1.03%
- 6M
- -0.58%
- YTD
- -0.41%
- 1Y
- 1.45%
- 3Y*
- 3.64%
- 5Y*
- -0.81%
- 10Y*
- 1.26%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.96%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | $1.21M | $1.22M | $1.73M |
| $1.58M | $1.52M | $881.18K |
CMBS vs. GBF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 0.13% | 7.67% | 4.27% | 5.06% | -11.21% | -1.82% | 7.86% | 7.94% | 0.77% | 2.95% |
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | -0.41% | 6.41% | 0.99% | 5.79% | -13.85% | -2.30% | 8.76% | 9.47% | -0.52% | 4.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMBS and GBF is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.44 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.56 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.65 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2012 | 0.51 |
The correlation between CMBS and GBF shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (1 year) to 0.65 (5 years), 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
CMBS vs. GBF — Risk / Return Rank
CMBS
GBF
CMBS vs. GBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.
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.
| CMBS | GBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 1.07 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.15 | 0.53 | +0.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.66 | 1.29 | +1.37 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMBS | GBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.87% | -19.67% | +3.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.44% | -2.73% | +0.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.19% | -4.90% | +1.71% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.75% | -18.35% | +2.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -15.87% | -19.67% | +3.80% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.78% | -5.43% | +3.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.94% | -3.68% | +0.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.06% | 1.13% | -0.07% |
Volatility
CMBS vs. GBF - Volatility Comparison
iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) has a higher volatility of 1.04% compared to iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) at 0.98%. This indicates that CMBS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMBS | GBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.04% | 0.98% | +0.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.87% | 2.85% | +0.02% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.65% | 3.59% | +0.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.33% | 5.92% | -0.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.76% | 5.28% | +0.48% |
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%.
Dividends
CMBS vs. GBF - Dividend Comparison
CMBS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.63%, less than GBF's 3.83% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 3.63% | 3.45% | 3.31% | 2.97% | 2.65% | 2.46% | 2.83% | 2.74% | 2.70% | 2.50% | 2.29% | 2.31% |
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.83% | 3.81% | 3.94% | 3.03% | 2.13% | 1.22% | 1.64% | 2.64% | 2.59% | 2.31% | 2.09% | 2.04% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMBS and GBF have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CMBS has higher volatility (1.04%) compared to GBF (0.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMBS dropped -15.87% vs GBF's -19.67%.
On 10-year performance, CMBS leads with 1.89% vs 1.26% for GBF. On fees, GBF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CMBS has performed better with a 1.89% return vs 1.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GBF is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for CMBS.
GBF has the higher dividend yield at 3.83%, compared with 3.63% for CMBS.
CMBS is categorized as Mortgage Backed Securities, while GBF is Intermediate Core Bond. CMBS tracks Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index, while GBF tracks Bloomberg U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for CMBS and 0.20% for GBF.
CMBS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.77 vs 0.41), 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.
Find the right allocation for CMBS and GBF
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