GCOR vs. AAAU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCOR (Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCOR is a Intermediate Core Bond fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs US Broad Bond Market Index, while AAAU is a Precious Metals fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GCOR returned -0.24%/yr vs 18.39%/yr for AAAU. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCOR charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.

Performance

GCOR vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCOR achieves a 0.16% return, which is significantly lower than AAAU's 2.94% return.

GCOR

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 0.17%
• YTD: 0.16%
• 6M: 0.01%
• 1Y: 4.97%
• 3Y*: 3.71%
• 5Y*: -0.24%
• 10Y*: —

AAAU

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 2.94%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 32.29%
• 3Y*: 31.37%
• 5Y*: 18.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

GCOR vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GCOR Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF	0.16%	7.22%	0.51%	5.79%	-13.83%	-1.88%	0.39%
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	2.94%	64.06%	26.91%	12.96%	-0.50%	-4.01%	-2.17%

Correlation

The correlation between GCOR and AAAU is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 11, 2020	0.31

Return for Risk

GCOR vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCOR

GCOR Risk / Return Rank: 37
GCOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
GCOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
GCOR Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GCOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GCOR Martin Ratio Rank: 35

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 32
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 36
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

GCOR vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.

	GCOR	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.37	1.23	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	1.63	+0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.25	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	1.70	+0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.42	4.21	+1.21
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GCOR vs. AAAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCOR Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is comparable to the AAAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCOR and AAAU, 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

	GCOR	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.37	1.23	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.04	1.04	-1.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.10	1.09	-1.19

Drawdowns

GCOR vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCOR drawdown since its inception was -18.94%, smaller than the maximum AAAU drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCOR and AAAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCOR	AAAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.94%	-21.63%	+2.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.82%	-19.13%	+16.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.09%	-19.13%	+13.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.63%	-20.94%	+2.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.52%	-17.68%	+14.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.99%	-6.18%	-1.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	7.69%	-6.77%

Volatility

GCOR vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR) is 1.27%, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a volatility of 5.50%. This indicates that GCOR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCOR	AAAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.27%	5.50%	-4.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.65%	22.94%	-20.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.65%	26.33%	-22.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.81%	17.83%	-12.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.52%	16.99%	-11.47%

GCOR vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCOR has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than AAAU's 0.18% 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

GCOR vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison

GCOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.17%, while AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GCOR Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF	4.17%	4.03%	4.36%	3.67%	2.11%	0.92%	0.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GCOR and AAAU in my portfolio?

GCOR and AAAU have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GCOR or AAAU?

AAAU has higher volatility (5.50%) compared to GCOR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCOR dropped -18.94% vs AAAU's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, GCOR or AAAU?

On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 18.39% vs -0.24% for GCOR. On fees, GCOR is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, GCOR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GCOR or AAAU?

Over the 5-year period, AAAU has performed better with a 18.39% return vs -0.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCOR or AAAU?

GCOR is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for AAAU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GCOR or AAAU?

GCOR has the higher dividend yield at 4.17%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.

What is the main difference between GCOR and AAAU?

GCOR is categorized as Intermediate Core Bond, while AAAU is Precious Metals. GCOR tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs US Broad Bond Market Index, while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for GCOR and 0.18% for AAAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs 1.23), 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.