GBPG.L vs. CBND.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

GBPG.L (Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist)) and CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - GBPG.L is a European Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Act UK Cnvt Gilts All Stocks TR GBP, while CBND.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GBPG.L returned 4.17%/yr vs 4.41%/yr for CBND.L. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. GBPG.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for CBND.L.

Performance

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GBPG.L is traded in GBP, while CBND.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CBND.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBPG.L achieves a 3.44% return, which is significantly lower than CBND.L's 4.44% return.

GBPG.L

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.21%
• 6M: -0.40%
• YTD: 3.44%
• 1Y: 2.69%
• 3Y*: 4.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CBND.L

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -0.86%
• 6M: 4.01%
• YTD: 4.44%
• 1Y: 6.30%
• 3Y*: 4.41%
• 5Y*: 3.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GBPG.L Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist)	3.44%	2.23%	0.17%	4.28%	-9.15%	-1.16%
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	4.44%	-2.44%	6.50%	-3.78%	6.10%	4.92%

Correlation

The correlation between GBPG.L and CBND.L is -0.05, 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	-0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 7, 2021	-0.03

Return for Risk

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GBPG.L

GBPG.L Risk / Return Rank: 19
GBPG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
GBPG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
GBPG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
GBPG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GBPG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22

CBND.L

CBND.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L). 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.

	GBPG.L	CBND.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.46	0.98	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.67	1.43	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.18	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	1.84	-1.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.19	5.14	-2.95

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBPG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.46, which is lower than the CBND.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBPG.L and CBND.L, 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

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBPG.L drawdown since its inception was -15.04%, smaller than the maximum CBND.L drawdown of -16.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBPG.L and CBND.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GBPG.L	CBND.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.04%	-16.35%	+1.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.16%	-3.40%	+0.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.30%	-9.09%	+5.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.35%	-4.42%	+3.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.78%	-7.47%	+1.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.23%	1.22%	+0.01%

Volatility

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L) is 1.11%, while Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) has a volatility of 1.90%. This indicates that GBPG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CBND.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GBPG.L	CBND.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.11%	1.90%	-0.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.31%	4.90%	-1.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.86%	6.39%	-0.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.37%	7.92%	-2.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.37%	8.34%	-2.97%

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBPG.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CBND.L's 0.24% 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

GBPG.L vs. CBND.L - Dividend Comparison

GBPG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%, more than CBND.L's 2.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.04%	2.20%	2.45%	2.54%	2.72%	2.52%	1.87%
GBPG.L Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist)	4.07%	4.13%	4.10%	3.35%	0.63%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GBPG.L and CBND.L in my portfolio?

GBPG.L and CBND.L have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GBPG.L or CBND.L?

On fees, GBPG.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GBPG.L or CBND.L?

GBPG.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for CBND.L.

What is the main difference between GBPG.L and CBND.L?

GBPG.L is categorized as European Government Bonds, while CBND.L is Government Bonds. GBPG.L tracks FTSE Act UK Cnvt Gilts All Stocks TR GBP, while CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for GBPG.L and 0.24% for CBND.L.