PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.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 (GFGB.L) and Invesco Global High Yield Corporate Bond ESG Climate Transition UCITS ETF Dist (GBHY.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFGB.L achieves a 3.80% return, which is significantly higher than GBHY.L's 1.56% return.


GFGB.L

1D
0.23%
1M
1.06%
YTD
3.80%
6M
3.42%
1Y
10.34%
3Y*
6.58%
5Y*
4.31%
10Y*

GBHY.L

1D
0.25%
1M
1.22%
YTD
1.56%
6M
1.26%
1Y
7.38%
3Y*
5.98%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between GFGB.L and GBHY.L is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.48

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2023

0.57

The correlation between GFGB.L and GBHY.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFGB.L
GFGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank

GBHY.L
GBHY.L Risk / Return Rank: 4343
Overall Rank
GBHY.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GBHY.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
GBHY.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
GBHY.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
GBHY.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4747
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.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 (GFGB.L) and Invesco Global High Yield Corporate Bond ESG Climate Transition UCITS ETF Dist (GBHY.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.


GFGB.LGBHY.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.26

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.21

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.25

2.35

+0.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.50

6.94

+1.55

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the GBHY.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFGB.L and GBHY.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GFGB.LGBHY.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.43

1.17

+0.26

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

0.65

+0.02

Drawdowns

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFGB.L drawdown since its inception was -15.95%, which is greater than GBHY.L's maximum drawdown of -7.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFGB.L and GBHY.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GFGB.LGBHY.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.95%

-7.72%

-8.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.04%

-3.12%

+0.08%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.54%

-7.03%

-0.51%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-10.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.13%

-0.01%

-1.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.52%

-2.28%

-0.24%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.16%

1.06%

+0.10%

Volatility

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) has a higher volatility of 3.51% compared to Invesco Global High Yield Corporate Bond ESG Climate Transition UCITS ETF Dist (GBHY.L) at 1.92%. This indicates that GFGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBHY.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GFGB.LGBHY.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.51%

1.92%

+1.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.86%

4.87%

+0.99%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.89%

6.28%

+0.61%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.81%

6.89%

+0.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.80%

6.89%

+1.91%

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFGB.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than GBHY.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

GFGB.L vs. GBHY.L - Dividend Comparison

GFGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GBHY.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.52%.


Frequently Asked Questions


GFGB.L and GBHY.L have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GBHY.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GBHY.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GFGB.L.

GFGB.L tracks ICE BofA Gbl HY Constnd TR USD, while GBHY.L tracks Bloomberg MSCI Global High Yield Liquid Corporate Climate Transition ESG Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GFGB.L and 0.25% for GBHY.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GFGB.L and GBHY.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer