GCAL vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCAL (Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - GCAL is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. GCAL is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, GCAL returned 6.88% vs 80.94% for UGA. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions. GCAL charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

GCAL vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCAL achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 75.49% return.

GCAL

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.69%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 2.03%
• 1Y: 6.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -12.35%
• YTD: 75.49%
• 6M: 64.35%
• 1Y: 80.94%
• 3Y*: 22.21%
• 5Y*: 25.10%
• 10Y*: 14.43%

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

GCAL vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	1.59%	4.60%	1.65%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	75.49%	-2.00%	-5.34%

Correlation

The correlation between GCAL and UGA is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	-0.17

Return for Risk

GCAL vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCAL

GCAL Risk / Return Rank: 78
GCAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
GCAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GCAL Omega Ratio Rank: 91
GCAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GCAL Martin Ratio Rank: 63

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 69
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

GCAL vs. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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.

	GCAL	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.83	2.32	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.08	2.75	+1.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.37	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	5.47	-2.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	13.25	-2.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GCAL vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.83, which is comparable to the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCAL and UGA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GCAL	UGA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.83	2.32	+0.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.18	0.12	+1.06

Drawdowns

GCAL vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCAL drawdown since its inception was -4.39%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCAL and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCAL	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.39%	-86.59%	+82.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.24%	-14.88%	+12.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-12.35%	+12.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.87%	-36.76%	+35.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	6.13%	-5.51%

Volatility

GCAL vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF (GCAL) is 0.73%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 11.66%. This indicates that GCAL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCAL	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.73%	11.66%	-10.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.75%	30.41%	-28.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44%	35.14%	-32.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.63%	34.38%	-30.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.63%	37.27%	-33.64%

GCAL vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCAL has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCAL vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

GCAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GCAL Goldman Sachs Dynamic California Municipal Income ETF	3.32%	3.06%	1.41%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GCAL and UGA in my portfolio?

GCAL and UGA 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.

Which is riskier, GCAL or UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (11.66%) compared to GCAL (0.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCAL dropped -4.39% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, GCAL or UGA?

On 1-year performance, UGA leads with 80.94% vs 6.88% for GCAL. On fees, GCAL is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, GCAL has been the lower-risk option at 0.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GCAL or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, UGA has performed better with a 80.94% return vs 6.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCAL or UGA?

GCAL is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for UGA.

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

GCAL has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

What is the main difference between GCAL and UGA?

GCAL is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GCAL and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.32), 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.