GBIL vs. USNG

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) and USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index, while USNG is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Amplify. GBIL is passively managed, while USNG is actively managed. Over the past year, GBIL returned 3.82% vs 40.19% for USNG. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. GBIL charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for USNG.

Performance

GBIL vs. USNG - 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 Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBIL achieves a 1.79% return, which is significantly lower than USNG's 30.79% return.

GBIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• 6M: 1.71%
• YTD: 1.79%
• 1Y: 3.82%
• 3Y*: 4.57%
• 5Y*: 3.39%
• 10Y*: —

USNG

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: -0.48%
• 6M: 26.80%
• YTD: 30.79%
• 1Y: 40.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GBIL vs. USNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.79%	2.63%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	30.79%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between GBIL and USNG is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2025	-0.07

Return for Risk

GBIL vs. USNG — 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

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 90
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 85
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. USNG - 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 Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG). 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	USNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	16.75	2.40	+14.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	108.62	3.27	+105.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	47.94	1.40	+46.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	191.88	5.92	+185.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1,688.12	16.93	+1,671.19

GBIL vs. USNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBIL Sharpe Ratio is 16.75, which is higher than the USNG Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBIL and USNG, 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. USNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBIL drawdown since its inception was -0.76%, smaller than the maximum USNG drawdown of -6.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBIL and USNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GBIL	USNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-6.82%	+6.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.02%	-6.82%	+6.80%
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%	-4.56%	+4.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.04%	-1.60%	+1.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.00%	2.38%	-2.38%

Volatility

GBIL vs. USNG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) is 0.06%, while Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) has a volatility of 5.32%. This indicates that GBIL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GBIL	USNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.06%	5.32%	-5.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.14%	12.87%	-12.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23%	16.83%	-16.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.58%	16.70%	-16.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.47%	16.70%	-16.23%

GBIL vs. USNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBIL has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than USNG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

GBIL vs. USNG - Dividend Comparison

GBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.71%, more than USNG's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	3.71%	4.02%	4.93%	4.77%	1.37%	0.00%	0.81%	2.20%	1.70%	0.74%	0.11%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.47%	1.10%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GBIL and USNG in my portfolio?

GBIL and USNG have a correlation of -0.12, 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 USNG?

USNG has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to GBIL (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBIL dropped -0.76% vs USNG's -6.82%.

Which ETF is better, GBIL or USNG?

On 1-year performance, USNG leads with 40.19% vs 3.82% 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 USNG?

Over the 1-year period, USNG has performed better with a 40.19% return vs 3.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GBIL or USNG?

GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for USNG.

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

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.71%, compared with 1.47% for USNG.

What is the main difference between GBIL and USNG?

GBIL is categorized as Government Bonds, while USNG is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GBIL and 0.59% for USNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.75 vs 2.40), 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.