GBND vs. EDGF

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

GBND (Goldman Sachs Core Bond ETF) and EDGF (3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. Over the past year, GBND returned 4.56% vs 2.92% for EDGF. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GBND charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EDGF.

Performance

GBND vs. EDGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Core Bond ETF (GBND) and 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (EDGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBND achieves a 0.17% return, which is significantly lower than EDGF's 1.01% return.

GBND

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: -0.50%
• 6M: -0.12%
• YTD: 0.17%
• 1Y: 4.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EDGF

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: -0.06%
• 6M: 0.93%
• YTD: 1.01%
• 1Y: 2.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GBND vs. EDGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GBND Goldman Sachs Core Bond ETF	0.17%	3.68%
EDGF 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF	1.01%	1.96%

Correlation

The correlation between GBND and EDGF is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.60

The correlation between GBND and EDGF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GBND vs. EDGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GBND

GBND Risk / Return Rank: 41
GBND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
GBND Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
GBND Omega Ratio Rank: 42
GBND Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
GBND Martin Ratio Rank: 37

EDGF

EDGF Risk / Return Rank: 72
EDGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EDGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
EDGF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EDGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
EDGF Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

GBND vs. EDGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Core Bond ETF (GBND) and 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (EDGF). 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.

	GBND	EDGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	1.56	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	2.42	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.31	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.66	4.56	-2.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.62	11.83	-7.21

GBND vs. EDGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBND Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is comparable to the EDGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBND and EDGF, 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

GBND vs. EDGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBND drawdown since its inception was -2.76%, which is greater than EDGF's maximum drawdown of -1.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBND and EDGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GBND	EDGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.76%	-1.62%	-1.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.76%	-0.64%	-2.12%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.56%	-0.11%	-1.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.71%	-0.44%	-0.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	0.25%	+0.74%

Volatility

GBND vs. EDGF - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Core Bond ETF (GBND) has a higher volatility of 0.99% compared to 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (EDGF) at 0.44%. This indicates that GBND's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EDGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GBND	EDGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.99%	0.44%	+0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.89%	1.21%	+1.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.63%	1.89%	+1.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.64%	2.30%	+1.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.64%	2.30%	+1.34%

GBND vs. EDGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBND has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EDGF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

GBND vs. EDGF - Dividend Comparison

GBND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.84%, more than EDGF's 3.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
EDGF 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF	3.22%	3.61%	0.49%
GBND Goldman Sachs Core Bond ETF	3.84%	2.20%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GBND and EDGF in my portfolio?

GBND and EDGF have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GBND or EDGF?

GBND has higher volatility (0.99%) compared to EDGF (0.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GBND dropped -2.76% vs EDGF's -1.62%.

Which ETF is better, GBND or EDGF?

On 1-year performance, GBND leads with 4.56% vs 2.92% for EDGF. On fees, GBND is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, EDGF has been the lower-risk option at 0.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GBND or EDGF?

Over the 1-year period, GBND has performed better with a 4.56% return vs 2.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GBND or EDGF?

GBND is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EDGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GBND or EDGF?

GBND has the higher dividend yield at 3.84%, compared with 3.22% for EDGF.

What is the main difference between GBND and EDGF?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and 3EDGE Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GBND and 0.79% for EDGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EDGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 1.26), 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.