PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GHYB vs. BSJP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GHYB vs. BSJP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (GHYB) and Invesco BulletShares 2025 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period


GHYB

1D
0.15%
1M
0.44%
YTD
1.52%
6M
1.92%
1Y
7.58%
3Y*
8.68%
5Y*
4.11%
10Y*

BSJP

1D
1M
YTD
6M
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GHYB vs. BSJP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GHYB
Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
1.52%9.38%7.76%12.13%-11.02%3.21%6.38%14.55%-2.01%0.37%
BSJP
Invesco BulletShares 2025 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
0.00%4.46%8.07%10.41%-5.16%4.57%4.16%16.89%-4.66%0.35%

Correlation

The correlation between GHYB and BSJP is 0.01, 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

0.01

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

0.65

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2017

0.78

Over the past year, the correlation between GHYB and BSJP has dropped to 0.01 - well below their long-term average of 0.78, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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. BSJP — Risk / Return Rank

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

GHYB
GHYB Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
GHYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GHYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
GHYB Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
GHYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
GHYB Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

BSJP
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.

GHYB vs. BSJP - 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 Invesco BulletShares 2025 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJP). 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.


GHYBBSJPDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.18

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.25

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.81

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

12.88

GHYB vs. BSJP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GHYBBSJPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.18

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

Drawdowns

GHYB vs. BSJP - Drawdown Comparison


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GHYBBSJPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.48%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.67%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.57%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.58%

Volatility

GHYB vs. BSJP - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GHYBBSJPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.48%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.69%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.28%

GHYB vs. BSJP - Expense Ratio Comparison

GHYB has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is lower than BSJP's 0.42% expense ratio.


Dividends

GHYB vs. BSJP - Dividend Comparison

GHYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.79%, more than BSJP's 2.26% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
BSJP
Invesco BulletShares 2025 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
2.26%4.50%6.25%7.07%5.37%4.27%4.96%5.49%5.84%1.32%
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 BSJP have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GHYB is cheaper at 0.34% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GHYB is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for BSJP.

GHYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.79%, compared with 2.26% for BSJP.

GHYB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index, while BSJP tracks NASDAQ BulletShares USD High Yield Corporate Bond 2025 TR Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for GHYB and 0.42% for BSJP.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GHYB and BSJP

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