GCAL vs. FBDC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and FBDC (FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCAL is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while FBDC is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GCAL returned 4.85% vs -10.92% for FBDC. Their 0.07 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GCAL charges 0.30%/yr vs 1.35%/yr for FBDC.

Performance

GCAL vs. FBDC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCAL achieves a 0.97% return, which is significantly higher than FBDC's -7.31% return.

GCAL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: -1.25%
• 6M: 0.25%
• YTD: 0.97%
• 1Y: 4.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.61%

FBDC

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: -0.49%
• 6M: -6.64%
• YTD: -7.31%
• 1Y: -10.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -9.05%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	$213.26K	$189.97K	$198.06K
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	$1.12M	$835.57K	$864.67K

GCAL vs. FBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	0.97%	4.45%
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	-7.31%	-2.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GCAL and FBDC is 0.10, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2025	0.07

Return for Risk

GCAL vs. FBDC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GCAL

GCAL Risk / Return Rank: 80
GCAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GCAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
GCAL Omega Ratio Rank: 91
GCAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
GCAL Martin Ratio Rank: 67

FBDC

FBDC Risk / Return Rank: 4
FBDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Martin Ratio Rank: 4

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GCAL vs. FBDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). 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	FBDC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	-0.64	+2.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	-0.82	+3.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	0.91	+0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	-0.64	+3.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.24	-1.14	+9.38

GCAL vs. FBDC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is higher than the FBDC Sharpe Ratio of -0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCAL and FBDC, 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

GCAL vs. FBDC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, smaller than the maximum FBDC drawdown of -20.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and FBDC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCAL	FBDC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-20.60%	+16.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.24%	-18.08%	+15.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-15.23%	+13.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.83%	-10.91%	+10.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	10.12%	-9.47%

Volatility

GCAL vs. FBDC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) is 0.86%, while FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC) has a volatility of 4.72%. This indicates that GCAL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBDC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCAL	FBDC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	4.72%	-3.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.94%	14.60%	-12.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.48%	18.15%	-15.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.56%	17.81%	-14.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.56%	17.81%	-14.25%

GCAL vs. FBDC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCAL has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than FBDC's 1.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCAL vs. FBDC - Dividend Comparison

GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.41%, less than FBDC's 12.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	12.36%	5.41%	0.00%
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	3.30%	3.06%	1.41%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GCAL and FBDC in my portfolio?

GCAL and FBDC have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GCAL or FBDC?

FBDC has higher volatility (4.72%) compared to GCAL (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCAL dropped -4.39% vs FBDC's -20.60%.

Which ETF is better, GCAL or FBDC?

On 1-year performance, GCAL leads with 4.85% vs -10.92% for FBDC. 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.

Which ETF has performed better, GCAL or FBDC?

Over the 1-year period, GCAL has performed better with a 4.85% return vs -10.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCAL or FBDC?

GCAL is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GCAL or FBDC?

FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 12.36%, compared with 3.30% for GCAL.

What is the main difference between GCAL and FBDC?

GCAL is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while FBDC is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GCAL and 1.35% for FBDC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs -0.64), 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.