GBIL vs. PULS
GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) and PULS (PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while PULS is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PGIM. GBIL is passively managed, while PULS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GBIL returned 3.35%/yr vs 4.16%/yr for PULS. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GBIL charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PULS.
Performance
GBIL vs. PULS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GBIL achieves a 1.56% return, which is significantly lower than PULS's 1.90% return.
GBIL
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.24%
- YTD
- 1.56%
- 6M
- 1.66%
- 1Y
- 3.82%
- 3Y*
- 4.58%
- 5Y*
- 3.35%
- 10Y*
- —
PULS
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- YTD
- 1.90%
- 6M
- 2.03%
- 1Y
- 4.59%
- 3Y*
- 5.51%
- 5Y*
- 4.16%
- 10Y*
- —
GBIL vs. PULS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF | 1.56% | 4.12% | 5.24% | 4.91% | 1.05% | -0.08% | 0.79% | 2.31% | 1.41% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 1.90% | 4.97% | 6.12% | 6.26% | 1.52% | 0.48% | 1.47% | 2.97% | 1.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBIL and PULS is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2018 | 0.25 |
Over the past year, GBIL and PULS have become more correlated (0.47) than their long-term average of 0.25, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. PULS — Risk / Return Rank
GBIL
PULS
GBIL vs. PULS - 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 PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS). 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 | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +6.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +76.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 42.70 | 6.78 | +35.92 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 191.74 | 51.29 | +140.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1,625.53 | 293.54 | +1,331.99 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GBIL vs. PULS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBIL drawdown since its inception was -0.76%, smaller than the maximum PULS drawdown of -5.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBIL and PULS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GBIL | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.76% | -5.85% | +5.09% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.02% | -0.09% | +0.07% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -0.76% | -0.34% | -0.42% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -0.76% | -0.79% | +0.03% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.04% | -0.09% | +0.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.00% | 0.02% | -0.02% |
Volatility
GBIL vs. PULS - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) is 0.05%, while PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF (PULS) has a volatility of 0.15%. This indicates that GBIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PULS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GBIL | PULS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.05% | 0.15% | -0.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.14% | 0.32% | -0.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23% | 0.43% | -0.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.58% | 0.70% | -0.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 0.47% | 1.33% | -0.86% |
GBIL vs. PULS - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBIL has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than PULS's 0.15% 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. PULS - Dividend Comparison
GBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%, less than PULS's 4.57% 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% |
PULS PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF | 4.57% | 4.78% | 5.62% | 5.48% | 2.30% | 1.19% | 1.85% | 2.69% | 1.87% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GBIL and PULS have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PULS has higher volatility (0.15%) compared to GBIL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBIL dropped -0.76% vs PULS's -5.85%.
On 5-year performance, PULS leads with 4.16% vs 3.35% for GBIL. On fees, GBIL is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, PULS has performed better with a 4.16% return vs 3.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for PULS.
PULS has the higher dividend yield at 4.57%, compared with 3.74% for GBIL.
GBIL is categorized as Government Bonds, while PULS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GBIL and 0.15% for PULS.
GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.83 vs 10.75), 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 PULS
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