GGUS vs. GBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GGUS (Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GGUS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth 40 Act Daily Capped Index - Benchmark TR Gross, 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 year, GGUS returned 23.97% vs 3.91% for GBIL. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.12% expense ratio.

Performance

GGUS vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) 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, GGUS achieves a 7.56% return, which is significantly higher than GBIL's 1.42% return.

GGUS

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: 6.20%
• YTD: 7.56%
• 6M: 7.02%
• 1Y: 23.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

GGUS vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GGUS Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF	7.56%	17.32%	30.88%	4.54%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.42%	4.12%	5.24%	0.47%

Correlation

The correlation between GGUS and GBIL is -0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2023	0.02

Return for Risk

GGUS vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGUS

GGUS Risk / Return Rank: 41
GGUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
GGUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
GGUS Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GGUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
GGUS Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

GGUS vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) 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.

	GGUS	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	16.89	-15.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.22	102.89	-100.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	39.42	-38.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.62	196.43	-194.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.55	1,608.66	-1,603.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GGUS vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGUS Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 16.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGUS 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

	GGUS	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.61	16.89	-15.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.30	4.87	-3.58

Drawdowns

GGUS vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGUS drawdown since its inception was -22.59%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGUS and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGUS	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.59%	-0.76%	-21.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.91%	-0.02%	-14.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.76%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.28%	0.00%	-1.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.20%	-0.04%	-3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.33%	0.00%	+4.33%

Volatility

GGUS vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) has a higher volatility of 3.41% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.04%. This indicates that GGUS'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

	GGUS	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.41%	0.04%	+3.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.30%	0.14%	+11.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.00%	0.23%	+14.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.96%	0.58%	+18.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.96%	0.47%	+18.49%

GGUS vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GGUS and GBIL have an expense ratio of 0.12%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GGUS vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

GGUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%, less 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%
GGUS Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF	0.41%	0.43%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GGUS and GBIL in my portfolio?

GGUS and GBIL have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GGUS or GBIL?

GGUS has higher volatility (3.41%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGUS dropped -22.59% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, GGUS or GBIL?

On 1-year performance, GGUS leads with 23.97% vs 3.91% for GBIL. Both ETFs have the same 0.12% expense ratio. 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, GGUS or GBIL?

Over the 1-year period, GGUS has performed better with a 23.97% return vs 3.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGUS or GBIL?

GGUS and GBIL have the same expense ratio: 0.12% per year.

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

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.41% for GGUS.

What is the main difference between GGUS and GBIL?

GGUS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while GBIL is Government Bonds. GGUS tracks Russell 1000 Growth 40 Act Daily Capped Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 vs 1.61), 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.