GCAL vs. FAAR
GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCAL is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GCAL returned 4.85% vs 21.75% for FAAR. Their -0.14 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GCAL charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.
Performance
GCAL vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GCAL achieves a 0.97% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 15.98% return.
GCAL
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- -1.25%
- 6M
- 0.25%
- YTD
- 0.97%
- 1Y
- 4.85%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.61%
FAAR
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- -0.80%
- 6M
- 6.86%
- YTD
- 15.98%
- 1Y
- 21.75%
- 3Y*
- 8.66%
- 5Y*
- 6.90%
- 10Y*
- 4.38%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.24%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.17M | $1.04M | $1.66M | |
| $1.12M | $835.57K | $864.67K |
GCAL vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF | 0.97% | 4.60% | 1.70% |
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF | 15.98% | 8.07% | 0.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between GCAL and FAAR is -0.23, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2024 | -0.14 |
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
GCAL vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank
GCAL
FAAR
GCAL vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.
| GCAL | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.55 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | 1.28 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.38 | 2.18 | +0.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.24 | 6.19 | +2.06 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GCAL vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, smaller than the maximum FAAR drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and FAAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GCAL | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.39% | -18.03% | +13.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.24% | -9.34% | +7.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -11.54% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.03% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -18.03% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.25% | -8.77% | +7.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.83% | -7.83% | +7.00% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.65% | 3.29% | -2.64% |
Volatility
GCAL vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) is 0.86%, while First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) has a volatility of 2.11%. This indicates that GCAL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GCAL | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.86% | 2.11% | -1.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.94% | 9.47% | -7.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.48% | 12.74% | -10.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.56% | 11.87% | -8.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.56% | 11.54% | -7.98% |
GCAL vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
GCAL has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
GCAL vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison
GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.41%, less than FAAR's 9.87% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF | 9.87% | 11.63% | 3.45% | 3.20% | 5.82% | 6.49% | 3.05% | 1.02% | 0.58% | 2.83% |
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF | 3.30% | 3.06% | 1.41% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GCAL and FAAR have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FAAR has higher volatility (2.11%) compared to GCAL (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCAL dropped -4.39% vs FAAR's -18.03%.
On 1-year performance, FAAR leads with 21.75% vs 4.85% for GCAL. On fees, GCAL is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, GCAL has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 21.75% return vs 4.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GCAL is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.
FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.87%, compared with 3.30% for GCAL.
GCAL is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GCAL and 0.95% for FAAR.
GCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 1.60), 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 GCAL and FAAR
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