GBF vs. CMBS

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS).

GBF and CMBS 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 Bloomberg U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index. It was launched on Jan 11, 2007. CMBS is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index. It was launched on Feb 14, 2012. Both GBF and CMBS are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

GBF vs. CMBS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

GBF vs. CMBS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF	0.09%	6.41%	0.99%	5.79%	-13.85%	-2.30%	8.76%	9.47%	-0.52%	4.10%
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF	0.07%	7.67%	4.27%	5.06%	-11.21%	-1.82%	7.86%	7.94%	0.77%	2.95%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBF achieves a 0.09% return, which is significantly higher than CMBS's 0.07% return. Over the past 10 years, GBF has underperformed CMBS with an annualized return of 1.58%, while CMBS has yielded a comparatively higher 2.18% annualized return.

GBF

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: -1.35%
• YTD: 0.09%
• 6M: 0.44%
• 1Y: 3.51%
• 3Y*: 3.20%
• 5Y*: -0.04%
• 10Y*: 1.58%

CMBS

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -1.30%
• YTD: 0.07%
• 6M: 1.21%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: 5.31%
• 5Y*: 1.05%
• 10Y*: 2.18%

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

GBF vs. CMBS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CMBS's 0.25% 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%.

CMBS

iShares CMBS ETF

GBF

iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF

Return for Risk

GBF vs. CMBS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GBF

GBF Risk / Return Rank: 43
GBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GBF Omega Ratio Rank: 34
GBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
GBF Martin Ratio Rank: 42

CMBS

CMBS Risk / Return Rank: 68
CMBS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMBS Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
CMBS Omega Ratio Rank: 55
CMBS Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
CMBS Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

GBF vs. CMBS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) and iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS). 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	CMBS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	1.21	-0.38
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.19	1.81	-0.61
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.21	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	2.20	-0.67
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.29	8.26	-3.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GBF vs. CMBS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBF Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the CMBS Sharpe Ratio of 1.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBF and CMBS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GBF	CMBS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83	1.21	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.01	0.20	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.30	0.38	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.44	+0.14

Correlation

The correlation between GBF and CMBS is 0.51, 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.

Dividends

GBF vs. CMBS - Dividend Comparison

GBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.77%, more than CMBS's 3.53% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF	3.77%	3.81%	3.94%	3.03%	2.13%	1.22%	1.64%	2.64%	2.59%	2.31%	2.09%	2.04%
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF	3.53%	3.45%	3.31%	2.97%	2.65%	2.46%	2.83%	2.74%	2.70%	2.50%	2.29%	2.31%

Drawdowns

GBF vs. CMBS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBF drawdown since its inception was -19.67%, which is greater than CMBS's maximum drawdown of -15.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBF and CMBS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GBF	CMBS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.67%	-15.87%	-3.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.50%	-2.44%	-0.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.45%	-15.87%	-2.58%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.67%	-15.87%	-3.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.96%	-1.84%	-3.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.66%	-2.97%	-0.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.89%	0.65%	+0.24%

Volatility

GBF vs. CMBS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) has a higher volatility of 1.64% compared to iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) at 1.49%. This indicates that GBF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMBS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GBF	CMBS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.64%	1.49%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.53%	2.63%	-0.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.23%	3.92%	+0.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.92%	5.29%	+0.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.27%	5.77%	-0.50%