GHMS vs. AFIF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GHMS (Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF) and AFIF (Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GHMS returned 2.44% vs 5.16% for AFIF. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GHMS charges 1.20%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for AFIF.

Performance

GHMS vs. AFIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) and Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF (AFIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GHMS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 2.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AFIF

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.49%
• 6M: 1.92%
• 1Y: 5.16%
• 3Y*: 7.16%
• 5Y*: 3.56%
• 10Y*: —

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

GHMS vs. AFIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GHMS Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF	0.00%	5.52%	2.30%	3.77%
AFIF Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF	1.49%	6.56%	7.06%	2.54%

Correlation

The correlation between GHMS and AFIF is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2023	0.16

Return for Risk

GHMS vs. AFIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GHMS

GHMS Risk / Return Rank: 21
GHMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
GHMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
GHMS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
GHMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
GHMS Martin Ratio Rank: 17

AFIF

AFIF Risk / Return Rank: 64
AFIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
AFIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
AFIF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
AFIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
AFIF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

GHMS vs. AFIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) and Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF (AFIF). 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.

	GHMS	AFIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	1.88	-1.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.00	2.71	-1.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.39	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.14	3.18	-2.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.67	14.00	-12.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GHMS vs. AFIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GHMS Sharpe Ratio is 0.63, which is lower than the AFIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GHMS and AFIF, 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

	GHMS	AFIF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63	1.88	-1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.81	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.93	0.42	+0.51

Drawdowns

GHMS vs. AFIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GHMS drawdown since its inception was -4.73%, smaller than the maximum AFIF drawdown of -10.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GHMS and AFIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GHMS	AFIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.73%	-10.29%	+5.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.73%	-1.63%	-1.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.79%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-8.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.44%	0.00%	-2.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.21%	-2.22%	+1.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	0.37%	+1.44%

Volatility

GHMS vs. AFIF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF (GHMS) is 0.00%, while Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF (AFIF) has a volatility of 0.56%. This indicates that GHMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GHMS	AFIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	0.56%	-0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.74%	2.03%	-0.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.97%	2.76%	+2.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.36%	4.43%	+0.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.36%	6.26%	-0.90%

GHMS vs. AFIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GHMS has a 1.20% expense ratio, which is higher than AFIF's 1.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

GHMS vs. AFIF - Dividend Comparison

GHMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, less than AFIF's 3.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AFIF Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF	3.58%	3.52%	5.61%	5.91%	3.49%	1.73%	1.25%	2.54%	0.69%
GHMS Goose Hollow Multi-Strategy Income ETF	1.69%	1.69%	4.48%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GHMS and AFIF in my portfolio?

GHMS and AFIF have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GHMS or AFIF?

AFIF has higher volatility (0.56%) compared to GHMS (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GHMS dropped -4.73% vs AFIF's -10.29%.

Which ETF is better, GHMS or AFIF?

On 1-year performance, AFIF leads with 5.16% vs 2.44% for GHMS. On fees, AFIF is cheaper at 1.08% per year. On volatility, GHMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GHMS or AFIF?

Over the 1-year period, AFIF has performed better with a 5.16% return vs 2.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GHMS or AFIF?

AFIF is cheaper with a 1.08% expense ratio, compared with 1.20% for GHMS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GHMS or AFIF?

AFIF has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 1.69% for GHMS.

What is the main difference between GHMS and AFIF?

They also come from different issuers: Goose Hollow and Regents Park Funds. Their fees differ too: 1.20% for GHMS and 1.08% for AFIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 0.62), 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.