GHYB vs. AAAU
GHYB (Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GHYB is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index, while AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GHYB returned 3.92%/yr vs 17.28%/yr for AAAU. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GHYB charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.
Performance
GHYB vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GHYB achieves a 1.51% return, which is significantly higher than AAAU's -7.64% return.
GHYB
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.53%
- YTD
- 1.51%
- 6M
- 1.46%
- 1Y
- 6.14%
- 3Y*
- 8.94%
- 5Y*
- 3.92%
- 10Y*
- —
AAAU
- 1D
- -3.03%
- 1M
- -11.57%
- YTD
- -7.64%
- 6M
- -11.09%
- 1Y
- 19.69%
- 3Y*
- 27.36%
- 5Y*
- 17.28%
- 10Y*
- —
GHYB vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GHYB Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 1.51% | 9.38% | 7.76% | 12.13% | -11.02% | 3.21% | 6.38% | 14.55% | -3.32% |
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | -7.64% | 64.06% | 26.91% | 12.96% | -0.50% | -4.01% | 25.02% | 18.17% | 8.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between GHYB and AAAU 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 | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2018 | 0.17 |
The correlation between GHYB and AAAU shifts across timeframes, from 0.17 (all time) to 0.30 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
GHYB vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank
GHYB
AAAU
GHYB vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (GHYB) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.
| GHYB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.55 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.16 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.31 | 0.76 | +1.55 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.49 | 2.15 | +8.34 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GHYB vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GHYB drawdown since its inception was -21.48%, smaller than the maximum AAAU drawdown of -26.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GHYB and AAAU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GHYB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.48% | -26.14% | +4.66% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.67% | -26.14% | +23.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.66% | -26.14% | +21.48% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.08% | -26.14% | +10.06% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.14% | -26.14% | +26.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.55% | -6.29% | +3.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.59% | 9.19% | -8.60% |
Volatility
GHYB vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (GHYB) is 0.93%, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a volatility of 8.57%. This indicates that GHYB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GHYB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.93% | 8.57% | -7.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.77% | 24.35% | -21.58% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.51% | 27.48% | -23.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.70% | 18.13% | -10.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.26% | 17.19% | -8.93% |
GHYB vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison
GHYB has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than AAAU's 0.18% expense ratio.
Dividends
GHYB vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison
GHYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.79%, while AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GHYB Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 6.79% | 7.00% | 6.65% | 6.20% | 5.67% | 4.46% | 4.75% | 5.57% | 5.68% | 1.45% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GHYB and AAAU 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.
AAAU has higher volatility (8.57%) compared to GHYB (0.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GHYB dropped -21.48% vs AAAU's -26.14%.
On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 17.28% vs 3.92% for GHYB. On fees, AAAU is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, GHYB has been the lower-risk option at 0.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, AAAU has performed better with a 17.28% return vs 3.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AAAU is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for GHYB.
GHYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.79%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.
GHYB is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while AAAU is Gold. GHYB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index, while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for GHYB and 0.18% for AAAU.
GHYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 0.72), 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.
Find the right allocation for GHYB and AAAU
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