FLRT vs. GPIQ

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FLRT (Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF) and GPIQ (Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLRT is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by Pacific Life, while GPIQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLRT returned 5.76% vs 33.04% for GPIQ. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLRT charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for GPIQ.

Performance

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) and Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLRT achieves a 1.66% return, which is significantly lower than GPIQ's 14.88% return.

FLRT

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 2.14%
• 1Y: 5.76%
• 3Y*: 8.70%
• 5Y*: 5.93%
• 10Y*: 4.84%

GPIQ

• 1D: 1.46%
• 1M: 0.97%
• YTD: 14.88%
• 6M: 14.06%
• 1Y: 33.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF	1.66%	6.24%	9.18%	3.92%
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	14.88%	19.77%	23.22%	15.38%

Correlation

The correlation between FLRT and GPIQ is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2023	0.29

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLRT	GPIQ
Financial Services	99.2%	0.2%
Communication Services	0.8%	15.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.9%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	53.8%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

FLRT vs. GPIQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLRT

FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 86
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 71

GPIQ

GPIQ Risk / Return Rank: 79
GPIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
GPIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
GPIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 80
GPIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
GPIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) and Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ). 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.

	FLRT	GPIQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.65	2.36	+1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.62	3.06	+2.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.87	1.43	+0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.26	3.49	-0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	15.21	-3.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLRT Sharpe Ratio is 3.65, which is higher than the GPIQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLRT and GPIQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FLRT	GPIQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.65	2.36	+1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	2.59	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	1.67	-0.93

Drawdowns

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLRT drawdown since its inception was -20.96%, roughly equal to the maximum GPIQ drawdown of -21.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLRT and GPIQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLRT	GPIQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.96%	-21.06%	+0.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.78%	-9.51%	+7.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-7.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-3.08%	+2.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.41%	-2.27%	+0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.48%	2.18%	-1.70%

Volatility

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) is 0.44%, while Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) has a volatility of 5.54%. This indicates that FLRT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GPIQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLRT	GPIQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.44%	5.54%	-5.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.21%	11.32%	-10.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.59%	14.07%	-12.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.30%	17.63%	-15.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.15%	17.63%	-11.48%

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLRT has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than GPIQ's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLRT vs. GPIQ - Dividend Comparison

FLRT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.82%, less than GPIQ's 9.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF	6.82%	6.93%	7.93%	8.40%	5.81%	3.16%	3.52%	4.30%	3.95%	3.20%	3.38%	3.21%
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	9.60%	9.81%	9.18%	1.74%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLRT and GPIQ in my portfolio?

FLRT and GPIQ have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLRT or GPIQ?

GPIQ has higher volatility (5.54%) compared to FLRT (0.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLRT dropped -20.96% vs GPIQ's -21.06%.

Which ETF is better, FLRT or GPIQ?

On 1-year performance, GPIQ leads with 33.04% vs 5.76% for FLRT. On fees, GPIQ is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLRT or GPIQ?

Over the 1-year period, GPIQ has performed better with a 33.04% return vs 5.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLRT or GPIQ?

GPIQ is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for FLRT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLRT or GPIQ?

GPIQ has the higher dividend yield at 9.60%, compared with 6.82% for FLRT.

What is the main difference between FLRT and GPIQ?

FLRT is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while GPIQ is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Pacific Life and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for FLRT and 0.29% for GPIQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.65 vs 2.36), 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.