GBIL vs. IBTF
GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) and IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) are both Government Bonds funds - GBIL tracks the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index while IBTF tracks the ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GBIL returned 3.35%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for IBTF. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GBIL charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTF.
Performance
GBIL vs. IBTF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GBIL
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.25%
- YTD
- 1.57%
- 6M
- 1.66%
- 1Y
- 3.81%
- 3Y*
- 4.59%
- 5Y*
- 3.35%
- 10Y*
- —
IBTF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 1.88%
- 3Y*
- 3.74%
- 5Y*
- 0.97%
- 10Y*
- —
GBIL vs. IBTF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF | 1.57% | 4.12% | 5.24% | 4.91% | 1.05% | -0.08% | 0.43% |
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF | 0.00% | 3.81% | 4.60% | 4.12% | -6.39% | -2.31% | 3.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBIL and IBTF is 0.04, 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 | 0.04 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2020 | 0.28 |
Over the past year, the correlation between GBIL and IBTF has dropped to 0.04 - well below their long-term average of 0.28, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
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
GBIL vs. IBTF — Risk / Return Rank
GBIL
IBTF
GBIL vs. IBTF - 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 iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). 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 | IBTF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +10.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +85.00 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 42.59 | 6.14 | +36.45 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 191.21 | 52.11 | +139.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1,621.11 | 263.51 | +1,357.60 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GBIL vs. IBTF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBIL drawdown since its inception was -0.76%, smaller than the maximum IBTF drawdown of -10.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBIL and IBTF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GBIL | IBTF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.76% | -10.45% | +9.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.02% | -0.04% | +0.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -0.76% | -0.46% | -0.30% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -0.76% | -9.53% | +8.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.04% | -3.30% | +3.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.00% | 0.01% | -0.01% |
Volatility
GBIL vs. IBTF - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) has a higher volatility of 0.05% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) at 0.00%. This indicates that GBIL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GBIL | IBTF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.05% | 0.00% | +0.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.14% | 0.15% | -0.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23% | 0.34% | -0.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.58% | 2.37% | -1.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 0.47% | 2.55% | -2.08% |
GBIL vs. IBTF - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBIL has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTF's 0.07% expense ratio. However, 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. IBTF - Dividend Comparison
GBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%, more than IBTF's 2.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF | 2.08% | 3.83% | 4.32% | 4.03% | 1.93% | 0.57% | 0.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GBIL and IBTF have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GBIL has higher volatility (0.05%) compared to IBTF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBIL dropped -0.76% vs IBTF's -10.45%.
On 5-year performance, GBIL leads with 3.35% vs 0.97% for IBTF. On fees, IBTF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, GBIL has performed better with a 3.35% return vs 0.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for GBIL.
GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 2.08% for IBTF.
GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while IBTF tracks ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GBIL and 0.07% for IBTF.
GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.78 vs 6.63), 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 GBIL and IBTF
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