GBIL vs. AAAU

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while AAAU is a Precious Metals fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GBIL returned 3.31%/yr vs 18.89%/yr for AAAU. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GBIL charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.

Performance

GBIL vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBIL achieves a 1.40% return, which is significantly lower than AAAU's 4.00% return.

GBIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.89%
• 3Y*: 4.63%
• 5Y*: 3.31%
• 10Y*: —

AAAU

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: -2.66%
• YTD: 4.00%
• 6M: 6.50%
• 1Y: 32.47%
• 3Y*: 31.82%
• 5Y*: 18.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

GBIL vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.40%	4.12%	5.24%	4.91%	1.05%	-0.08%	0.79%	2.31%	0.81%
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	4.00%	64.06%	26.91%	12.96%	-0.50%	-4.01%	25.02%	18.17%	9.20%

Correlation

The correlation between GBIL and AAAU is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018	0.11

Return for Risk

GBIL vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

GBIL

GBIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
GBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 34
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 37
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

GBIL vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.

	GBIL	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	16.76	1.24	+15.52
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	102.35	1.64	+100.72
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	39.22	1.25	+37.98
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	195.38	1.88	+193.50
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1,603.24	4.73	+1,598.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GBIL vs. AAAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBIL Sharpe Ratio is 16.76, which is higher than the AAAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBIL and AAAU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GBIL	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.76	1.24	+15.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	5.77	1.07	+4.70
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	4.87	1.10	+3.77

Drawdowns

GBIL vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBIL drawdown since its inception was -0.76%, smaller than the maximum AAAU drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBIL and AAAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GBIL	AAAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-21.63%	+20.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.02%	-19.13%	+19.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.76%	-19.13%	+18.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.76%	-20.94%	+20.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-16.84%	+16.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.04%	-6.18%	+6.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.00%	7.61%	-7.61%

Volatility

GBIL vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) is 0.04%, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a volatility of 5.76%. This indicates that GBIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GBIL	AAAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.04%	5.76%	-5.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.14%	22.92%	-22.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23%	26.43%	-26.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.58%	17.85%	-17.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.47%	16.99%	-16.52%

GBIL vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBIL has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than AAAU's 0.18% 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

GBIL vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison

GBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%, while AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	3.74%	4.02%	4.93%	4.77%	1.37%	0.00%	0.81%	2.20%	1.70%	0.74%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GBIL and AAAU in my portfolio?

GBIL and AAAU have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GBIL or AAAU?

AAAU has higher volatility (5.76%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBIL dropped -0.76% vs AAAU's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, GBIL or AAAU?

On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 18.89% vs 3.31% for GBIL. On fees, GBIL is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GBIL or AAAU?

Over the 5-year period, AAAU has performed better with a 18.89% return vs 3.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GBIL or AAAU?

GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for AAAU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GBIL or AAAU?

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.

What is the main difference between GBIL and AAAU?

GBIL is categorized as Government Bonds, while AAAU is Precious Metals. GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GBIL and 0.18% for AAAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.76 vs 1.24), 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.