GBF vs. AGZ
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares Agency Bond ETF (AGZ).
GBF and AGZ 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. AGZ is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. Agency Bond Index. It was launched on Nov 5, 2008. Both GBF and AGZ 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 AGZ.
Key characteristics
| GBF | AGZ | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 1.27% | 2.71% |
| 1Y Return | 7.45% | 5.94% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -2.61% | -0.19% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -0.33% | 0.86% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 1.40% | 1.58% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.32 | 1.82 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.98 | 2.80 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.23 | 1.34 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.44 | 0.78 |
| Martin Ratio | 4.30 | 8.58 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.71% | 0.68% |
| Daily Std Dev | 5.57% | 3.23% |
| Max Drawdown | -19.67% | -11.01% |
| Current Drawdown | -10.52% | -2.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBF and AGZ is 0.67, 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
GBF vs. AGZ - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, GBF achieves a 1.27% return, which is significantly lower than AGZ's 2.71% return. Over the past 10 years, GBF has underperformed AGZ with an annualized return of 1.40%, while AGZ has yielded a comparatively higher 1.58% annualized return. 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. AGZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both GBF and AGZ have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GBF vs. AGZ - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares Agency Bond ETF (AGZ). 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. AGZ - Dividend Comparison
GBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.95%, more than AGZ's 3.44% 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% |
AGZ iShares Agency Bond ETF | 3.44% | 3.14% | 1.57% | 0.96% | 2.25% | 2.32% | 2.15% | 1.58% | 1.52% | 1.30% | 1.33% | 1.19% |
Drawdowns
GBF vs. AGZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBF drawdown since its inception was -19.67%, which is greater than AGZ's maximum drawdown of -11.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBF and AGZ. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GBF vs. AGZ - Volatility Comparison
iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) has a higher volatility of 1.73% compared to iShares Agency Bond ETF (AGZ) at 0.82%. This indicates that GBF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.