PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GGRW vs. RBIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GGRW vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGRW achieves a 6.69% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.67% return.


GGRW

1D
0.54%
1M
4.28%
YTD
6.69%
6M
5.89%
1Y
17.33%
3Y*
27.07%
5Y*
9.97%
10Y*

RBIL

1D
-0.03%
1M
0.34%
YTD
2.67%
6M
2.74%
1Y
4.60%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GGRW vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between GGRW and RBIL is -0.31, 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

-0.31

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025

-0.27

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

GGRW vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGRW
GGRW Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
GGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
GGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
GGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
GGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank

RBIL
RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
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.

GGRW vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.


GGRWRBILDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.87

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-6.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

2.41

-1.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.32

17.11

-15.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.98

71.11

-66.13

GGRW vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGRW Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGRW and RBIL, 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


GGRWRBILDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.18

5.06

-3.87

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.40

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.32

4.24

-3.93

Drawdowns

GGRW vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGRW drawdown since its inception was -50.28%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGRW and RBIL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GGRWRBILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.28%

-0.50%

-49.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.19%

-0.27%

-12.92%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-50.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.36%

-0.03%

-0.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.37%

-0.06%

-17.31%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.49%

0.06%

+3.43%

Volatility

GGRW vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) has a higher volatility of 3.86% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that GGRW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GGRWRBILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.86%

0.30%

+3.56%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.65%

0.79%

+10.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.73%

0.92%

+13.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.32%

1.05%

+24.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.49%

1.05%

+24.44%

GGRW vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGRW has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.


Dividends

GGRW vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

GGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, less than RBIL's 4.60% yield.


Frequently Asked Questions


GGRW and RBIL have a correlation of -0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GGRW has higher volatility (3.86%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGRW dropped -50.28% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

On 1-year performance, GGRW leads with 17.33% vs 4.60% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, GGRW has performed better with a 17.33% return vs 4.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for GGRW.

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 0.40% for GGRW.

GGRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: GAMCO Investors, Inc. and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for GGRW and 0.17% for RBIL.

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.06 vs 1.18), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GGRW and RBIL

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