GEMD vs. GBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GEMD (Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GEMD is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs Emerging Markets USD Bond Index - Benchmark TR Net, while GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GEMD returned 8.37%/yr vs 4.64%/yr for GBIL. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GEMD charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.

Performance

GEMD vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (GEMD) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEMD achieves a 1.64% return, which is significantly higher than GBIL's 1.42% return.

GEMD

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 1.17%
• YTD: 1.64%
• 6M: 1.49%
• 1Y: 11.06%
• 3Y*: 8.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GBIL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.91%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

GEMD vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GEMD Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF	1.64%	13.67%	3.31%	8.51%	-15.70%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.42%	4.12%	5.24%	4.91%	1.14%

Correlation

The correlation between GEMD and GBIL is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2022	0.17

Return for Risk

GEMD vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEMD

GEMD Risk / Return Rank: 59
GEMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
GEMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
GEMD Omega Ratio Rank: 64
GEMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
GEMD Martin Ratio Rank: 58

GBIL

GBIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
GBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

GEMD vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (GEMD) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). 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.

	GEMD	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	16.89	-14.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.95	102.89	-99.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	39.42	-38.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.39	196.43	-194.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.09	1,608.66	-1,598.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GEMD vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEMD Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 16.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEMD and GBIL, 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

	GEMD	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.01	16.89	-14.87
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.21	4.87	-4.66

Drawdowns

GEMD vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEMD drawdown since its inception was -24.56%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEMD and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GEMD	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.56%	-0.76%	-23.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.64%	-0.02%	-4.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.69%	-0.76%	-6.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.43%	0.00%	-0.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.19%	-0.04%	-8.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.10%	0.00%	+1.10%

Volatility

GEMD vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (GEMD) has a higher volatility of 1.84% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.04%. This indicates that GEMD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GEMD	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.84%	0.04%	+1.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.40%	0.14%	+4.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.53%	0.23%	+5.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.95%	0.58%	+9.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.95%	0.47%	+9.48%

GEMD vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEMD has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than GBIL's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

GEMD vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

GEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.69%, more than GBIL's 3.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	3.74%	4.02%	4.93%	4.77%	1.37%	0.00%	0.81%	2.20%	1.70%	0.74%	0.11%
GEMD Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF	5.69%	6.32%	5.79%	5.70%	5.42%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GEMD and GBIL in my portfolio?

GEMD and GBIL have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GEMD or GBIL?

GEMD has higher volatility (1.84%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEMD dropped -24.56% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, GEMD or GBIL?

On 3-year performance, GEMD leads with 8.37% vs 4.64% for GBIL. On fees, GBIL is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GEMD or GBIL?

Over the 3-year period, GEMD has performed better with a 8.37% return vs 4.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GEMD or GBIL?

GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for GEMD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GEMD or GBIL?

GEMD has the higher dividend yield at 5.69%, compared with 3.74% for GBIL.

What is the main difference between GEMD and GBIL?

GEMD is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while GBIL is Government Bonds. GEMD tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs Emerging Markets USD Bond Index - Benchmark TR Net, while GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for GEMD and 0.12% for GBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 vs 2.01), 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.