GFA.L vs. GDGB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

GFA.L (VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF) and GDGB.L (VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GFA.L is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF, while GDGB.L is a Gold fund tracking the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GFA.L returned 2.71%/yr vs 18.15%/yr for GDGB.L. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GFA.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for GDGB.L.

Performance

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFA.L) and VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GFA.L is traded in USD, while GDGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the GDGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFA.L achieves a 2.23% return, which is significantly higher than GDGB.L's -14.19% return.

GFA.L

• 1D: -1.58%
• 1M: -1.67%
• 6M: 2.02%
• YTD: 2.23%
• 1Y: 5.68%
• 3Y*: 7.70%
• 5Y*: 2.71%
• 10Y*: —

GDGB.L

• 1D: -2.45%
• 1M: -14.23%
• 6M: -24.03%
• YTD: -14.19%
• 1Y: 45.41%
• 3Y*: 33.09%
• 5Y*: 18.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GFA.L VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF	2.23%	9.97%	6.02%	10.29%	-12.56%	1.93%	16.95%	13.34%	-3.62%
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	-14.19%	156.24%	9.38%	9.16%	-7.97%	-11.28%	23.23%	44.43%	-2.99%

Correlation

The correlation between GFA.L and GDGB.L is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 19, 2018	0.26

Return for Risk

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFA.L

GFA.L Risk / Return Rank: 29
GFA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GFA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GFA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GFA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GFA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

GDGB.L

GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 30
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFA.L) and VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L). 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.

	GFA.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	0.96	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.16	1.47	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.18	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	1.21	+0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.83	2.83	+1.00

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFA.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is comparable to the GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFA.L and GDGB.L, 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

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFA.L drawdown since its inception was -22.98%, smaller than the maximum GDGB.L drawdown of -50.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFA.L and GDGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFA.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.98%	-50.68%	+27.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-37.37%	+33.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.14%	-37.37%	+32.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.54%	-46.27%	+23.73%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.07%	-36.11%	+34.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.38%	-17.96%	+13.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.45%	16.01%	-14.56%

Volatility

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFA.L) is 2.17%, while VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a volatility of 14.74%. This indicates that GFA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GFA.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.17%	14.74%	-12.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	37.71%	-31.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.68%	46.97%	-40.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.29%	36.34%	-28.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.44%	34.56%	-26.12%

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than GDGB.L's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

GFA.L vs. GDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GFA.L nor GDGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GFA.L and GDGB.L in my portfolio?

GFA.L and GDGB.L have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GFA.L or GDGB.L?

On fees, GFA.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFA.L or GDGB.L?

GFA.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for GDGB.L.

What is the main difference between GFA.L and GDGB.L?

GFA.L is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while GDGB.L is Gold. GFA.L tracks VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF, while GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GFA.L and 0.53% for GDGB.L.