GBF vs. CMBS
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 Barclays Capital 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.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: GBF or CMBS.
Correlation
The correlation between GBF and CMBS is 0.52, 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. CMBS - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
GBF:
0.33
CMBS:
0.99
GBF:
0.50
CMBS:
1.49
GBF:
1.06
CMBS:
1.18
GBF:
0.12
CMBS:
0.51
GBF:
0.89
CMBS:
4.01
GBF:
1.94%
CMBS:
1.25%
GBF:
5.23%
CMBS:
5.06%
GBF:
-19.67%
CMBS:
-15.87%
GBF:
-10.66%
CMBS:
-5.03%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GBF achieves a 1.11% return, which is significantly lower than CMBS's 4.11% return. Over the past 10 years, GBF has underperformed CMBS with an annualized return of 1.28%, while CMBS has yielded a comparatively higher 1.81% annualized return.
GBF
1.11%
-0.09%
1.09%
1.60%
-0.41%
1.28%
CMBS
4.11%
0.52%
2.50%
4.74%
0.62%
1.81%
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. 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GBF vs. CMBS - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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.
Dividends
GBF vs. CMBS - Dividend Comparison
GBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.94%, more than CMBS's 3.32% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBF iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF | 3.94% | 3.03% | 2.13% | 1.22% | 1.64% | 2.64% | 2.59% | 2.31% | 2.09% | 2.04% | 2.08% | 2.37% |
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 3.32% | 2.97% | 2.65% | 2.46% | 2.83% | 2.74% | 2.70% | 2.50% | 2.30% | 2.31% | 2.15% | 2.00% |
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. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GBF vs. CMBS - Volatility Comparison
iShares Government/Credit Bond ETF (GBF) has a higher volatility of 1.66% compared to iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) at 1.53%. 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.