GHYB vs. FALN
GHYB (Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) and FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds - GHYB tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index while FALN tracks the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GHYB returned 3.84%/yr vs 3.39%/yr for FALN. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GHYB charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FALN.
Performance
GHYB vs. FALN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GHYB achieves a 1.55% return, which is significantly lower than FALN's 1.86% return.
GHYB
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- -0.32%
- 6M
- 0.99%
- YTD
- 1.55%
- 1Y
- 5.23%
- 3Y*
- 8.27%
- 5Y*
- 3.84%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 4.47%
FALN
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- -0.92%
- 6M
- 0.86%
- YTD
- 1.86%
- 1Y
- 6.24%
- 3Y*
- 8.53%
- 5Y*
- 3.39%
- 10Y*
- 6.24%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.52%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $23.72M | $18.39M | $26.66M | |
| $526.35K | $447.06K | $568.98K |
GHYB vs. FALN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GHYB Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 1.55% | 9.38% | 7.76% | 12.13% | -11.02% | 3.21% | 6.38% | 14.55% | -2.01% | 0.27% |
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF | 1.86% | 8.92% | 7.68% | 13.47% | -13.79% | 5.40% | 14.85% | 17.42% | -4.97% | 1.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between GHYB and FALN is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.88 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 7, 2017 | 0.83 |
The correlation between GHYB and FALN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. FALN — Risk / Return Rank
GHYB
FALN
GHYB vs. FALN - 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 iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). 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 | FALN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.14 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.27 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 1.26 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.95 | 1.57 | +0.38 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.74 | 6.42 | +2.32 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GHYB vs. FALN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GHYB drawdown since its inception was -21.48%, smaller than the maximum FALN drawdown of -29.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GHYB and FALN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GHYB | FALN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.48% | -29.22% | +7.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.67% | -3.96% | +1.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.66% | -5.92% | +1.26% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.08% | -18.78% | +2.70% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -29.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.43% | -1.07% | +0.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.53% | -3.28% | +0.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.60% | 0.97% | -0.37% |
Volatility
GHYB vs. FALN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (GHYB) is 0.67%, while iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) has a volatility of 0.99%. This indicates that GHYB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FALN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GHYB | FALN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.67% | 0.99% | -0.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.78% | 3.79% | -1.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.48% | 4.59% | -1.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.69% | 7.33% | +0.36% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.21% | 8.86% | -0.65% |
GHYB vs. FALN - Expense Ratio Comparison
GHYB has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than FALN's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
GHYB vs. FALN - Dividend Comparison
GHYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.76%, more than FALN's 6.51% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF | 5.98% | 6.31% | 6.24% | 5.37% | 5.08% | 3.40% | 5.14% | 5.35% | 5.97% | 6.98% | 3.55% |
GHYB Goldman Sachs Access High Yield Corporate Bond ETF | 6.16% | 7.00% | 6.65% | 6.20% | 5.67% | 4.46% | 4.75% | 5.57% | 5.68% | 1.45% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, GHYB and FALN move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
FALN has higher volatility (0.99%) compared to GHYB (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GHYB dropped -21.48% vs FALN's -29.22%.
On 5-year performance, GHYB leads with 3.84% vs 3.39% for FALN. On fees, FALN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, GHYB has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, GHYB has performed better with a 3.84% return vs 3.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FALN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for GHYB.
GHYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.16%, compared with 5.98% for FALN.
GHYB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs High Yield Corporate Bond Index, while FALN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for GHYB and 0.25% for FALN.
GHYB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs 1.36), 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 FALN
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