GBF vs. BOXA
GBF (iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF) and BOXA (Alpha Architect Aggregate Bond ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. GBF is passively managed, while BOXA is actively managed. Over the past year, GBF returned 4.02% vs 3.10% for BOXA. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GBF charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for BOXA.
Performance
GBF vs. BOXA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GBF achieves a 0.35% return, which is significantly higher than BOXA's -0.06% return.
GBF
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- 1Y
- 4.02%
- 3Y*
- 3.64%
- 5Y*
- -0.19%
- 10Y*
- 1.51%
BOXA
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- 0.05%
- YTD
- -0.06%
- 6M
- -0.15%
- 1Y
- 3.10%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GBF vs. BOXA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 0.35% | 6.41% | -0.11% |
BOXA Alpha Architect Aggregate Bond ETF | -0.06% | 5.41% | 0.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBF and BOXA is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024 | 0.94 |
The correlation between GBF and BOXA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
GBF vs. BOXA — Risk / Return Rank
GBF
BOXA
GBF vs. BOXA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and Alpha Architect Aggregate Bond ETF (BOXA). 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.
| GBF | BOXA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.25 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.14 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.48 | 0.96 | +0.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.37 | 2.94 | +1.43 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GBF | BOXA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.09 | 0.84 | +0.25 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.58 | 0.89 | -0.31 |
Drawdowns
GBF vs. BOXA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBF drawdown since its inception was -19.67%, which is greater than BOXA's maximum drawdown of -3.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBF and BOXA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GBF | BOXA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.67% | -3.22% | -16.45% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.73% | -3.22% | +0.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.78% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.45% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.67% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.71% | -1.91% | -2.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.67% | -0.75% | -2.92% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.92% | 1.06% | -0.14% |
Volatility
GBF vs. BOXA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) is 1.21%, while Alpha Architect Aggregate Bond ETF (BOXA) has a volatility of 1.35%. This indicates that GBF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BOXA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GBF | BOXA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.21% | 1.35% | -0.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.64% | 2.61% | +0.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.75% | 3.75% | 0.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.93% | 4.15% | +1.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.28% | 4.15% | +1.13% |
GBF vs. BOXA - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than BOXA's 0.23% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
GBF vs. BOXA - Dividend Comparison
GBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.78%, more than BOXA's 0.13% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOXA Alpha Architect Aggregate Bond ETF | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.78% | 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
With a correlation of 0.92, GBF and BOXA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
BOXA has higher volatility (1.35%) compared to GBF (1.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBF dropped -19.67% vs BOXA's -3.22%.
On 1-year performance, GBF leads with 4.02% vs 3.10% for BOXA. On fees, GBF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, GBF has been the lower-risk option at 1.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, GBF has performed better with a 4.02% return vs 3.10%. 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 0.23% for BOXA.
GBF has the higher dividend yield at 3.78%, compared with 0.13% for BOXA.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GBF and 0.23% for BOXA.
GBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs 0.84), 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 GBF and BOXA
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