GBF vs. AGG
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG).
GBF and AGG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. 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. AGG is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. It was launched on Sep 22, 2003. Both GBF and AGG 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: GBF or AGG.
Key characteristics
| GBF | AGG | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 1.27% | 1.83% |
| 1Y Return | 7.45% | 8.19% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -2.61% | -2.19% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -0.33% | -0.18% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 1.40% | 1.46% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.32 | 1.37 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.98 | 2.03 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.23 | 1.24 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.44 | 0.53 |
| Martin Ratio | 4.30 | 4.90 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.71% | 1.67% |
| Daily Std Dev | 5.57% | 5.95% |
| Max Drawdown | -19.67% | -18.43% |
| Current Drawdown | -10.52% | -8.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBF and AGG is 0.80, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
GBF vs. AGG - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, GBF achieves a 1.27% return, which is significantly lower than AGG's 1.83% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with GBF having a 1.40% annualized return and AGG not far ahead at 1.46%. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GBF vs. AGG - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than AGG's 0.05% 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
GBF vs. AGG - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG). 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
GBF vs. AGG - Dividend Comparison
GBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.95%, more than AGG's 3.64% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.95% | 3.03% | 2.13% | 1.22% | 1.64% | 2.64% | 2.59% | 2.31% | 2.09% | 2.04% | 2.08% | 2.37% |
AGG iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | 3.64% | 3.13% | 2.39% | 1.77% | 2.14% | 2.70% | 2.96% | 2.32% | 2.39% | 2.45% | 2.40% | 2.32% |
Drawdowns
GBF vs. AGG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBF drawdown since its inception was -19.67%, which is greater than AGG's maximum drawdown of -18.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBF and AGG. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GBF vs. AGG - Volatility Comparison
iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG) have volatilities of 1.73% and 1.78%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.