GBIL vs. BNKU

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) and BNKU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both exchange-traded funds - GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while BNKU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GBIL returned 3.74% vs 100.75% for BNKU. Their -0.14 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GBIL charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BNKU.

Performance

GBIL vs. BNKU - 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 MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBIL achieves a 2.00% return, which is significantly lower than BNKU's 31.56% return.

GBIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• 6M: 1.72%
• YTD: 2.00%
• 1Y: 3.74%
• 3Y*: 4.54%
• 5Y*: 3.43%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.30%

BNKU

• 1D: 1.66%
• 1M: 7.26%
• 6M: 22.79%
• YTD: 31.56%
• 1Y: 100.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 48.65%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs	$287.92K	$638.07K	$490.60K
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	$54.62M	$52.46M	$69.99M

GBIL vs. BNKU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	2.00%	3.64%
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs	31.56%	34.97%

Correlation

The correlation between GBIL and BNKU is -0.13, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.14

Return for Risk

GBIL vs. BNKU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks 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

BNKU

BNKU Risk / Return Rank: 63
BNKU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BNKU Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BNKU Omega Ratio Rank: 62
BNKU Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BNKU Martin Ratio Rank: 53

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GBIL vs. BNKU - 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 MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GBIL	BNKU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	18.10	1.71	+16.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	150.33	2.14	+148.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	92.87	1.28	+91.60
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	187.90	2.47	+185.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2,250.52	6.51	+2,244.02

GBIL vs. BNKU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBIL Sharpe Ratio is 18.10, which is higher than the BNKU Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBIL and BNKU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GBIL vs. BNKU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBIL drawdown since its inception was -0.76%, smaller than the maximum BNKU drawdown of -61.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBIL and BNKU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GBIL	BNKU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-61.21%	+60.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.02%	-40.97%	+40.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-6.02%	+6.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.04%	-16.74%	+16.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.00%	15.54%	-15.54%

Volatility

GBIL vs. BNKU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) is 0.06%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) has a volatility of 18.49%. This indicates that GBIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNKU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GBIL	BNKU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.06%	18.49%	-18.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.14%	46.92%	-46.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21%	59.32%	-59.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.58%	71.91%	-71.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.47%	71.91%	-71.44%

GBIL vs. BNKU - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBIL has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than BNKU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

GBIL vs. BNKU - Dividend Comparison

GBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.68%, while BNKU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs	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	3.68%	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 BNKU in my portfolio?

GBIL and BNKU have a correlation of -0.13, 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 BNKU?

BNKU has higher volatility (18.49%) compared to GBIL (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBIL dropped -0.76% vs BNKU's -61.21%.

Which ETF is better, GBIL or BNKU?

On 1-year performance, BNKU leads with 100.75% vs 3.74% for GBIL. On fees, GBIL is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GBIL or BNKU?

Over the 1-year period, BNKU has performed better with a 100.75% return vs 3.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GBIL or BNKU?

GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BNKU.

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

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.68%, compared with 0.00% for BNKU.

What is the main difference between GBIL and BNKU?

GBIL is categorized as Government Bonds, while BNKU is Leveraged Equities. GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while BNKU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%). They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GBIL and 0.95% for BNKU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (18.10 vs 1.71), 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.