GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L
Compare and contrast key facts about Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-5 Year Gilt UCITS ETF (GLTS.L).
GBPG.L and GLTS.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GBPG.L is a passively managed fund by Goldman Sachs that tracks the performance of the FTSE Act UK Cnvt Gilts All Stocks TR GBP. It was launched on Sep 7, 2021. GLTS.L is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the FTSE Act UK Cnvt Gilts All Stocks TR GBP. It was launched on May 17, 2012. Both GBPG.L and GLTS.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: GBPG.L or GLTS.L.
Key characteristics
| GBPG.L | GLTS.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -0.20% | 1.18% |
| 1Y Return | 3.73% | 3.73% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 25.51% | -0.46% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.75 | 0.94 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.09 | 1.46 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.13 | 1.20 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.01 | 0.49 |
| Martin Ratio | 2.26 | 3.52 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.31% | 0.91% |
| Daily Std Dev | 4.03% | 3.39% |
| Max Drawdown | -7.18% | -11.18% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.57% | -3.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between GBPG.L and GLTS.L is 0.94, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, GBPG.L achieves a -0.20% return, which is significantly lower than GLTS.L's 1.18% return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBPG.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTS.L'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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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 SPDR Bloomberg 1-5 Year Gilt UCITS ETF (GLTS.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.
Dividends
GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L - Dividend Comparison
GBPG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.12%, more than GLTS.L's 2.75% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBPG.L Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) | 4.12% | 3.35% | 62.57% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GLTS.L SPDR Bloomberg 1-5 Year Gilt UCITS ETF | 2.75% | 1.30% | 0.18% | 0.13% | 0.46% | 0.60% | 0.39% | 0.52% | 0.88% | 0.98% | 0.67% | 0.44% |
Drawdowns
GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GBPG.L drawdown since its inception was -7.18%, smaller than the maximum GLTS.L drawdown of -11.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBPG.L and GLTS.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GBPG.L vs. GLTS.L - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-5 Year Gilt UCITS ETF (GLTS.L) have volatilities of 2.71% and 2.60%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.