GIGB vs. AAAU
GIGB (Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GIGB is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index, while AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GIGB returned 0.48%/yr vs 18.60%/yr for AAAU. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GIGB charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.
Performance
GIGB vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GIGB achieves a 0.82% return, which is significantly lower than AAAU's 3.83% return.
GIGB
- 1D
- 0.14%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- 0.82%
- 6M
- 0.72%
- 1Y
- 5.53%
- 3Y*
- 5.20%
- 5Y*
- 0.48%
- 10Y*
- —
AAAU
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- 3.83%
- 6M
- 6.34%
- 1Y
- 32.55%
- 3Y*
- 31.47%
- 5Y*
- 18.60%
- 10Y*
- —
GIGB vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GIGB Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.82% | 7.58% | 1.68% | 8.80% | -15.80% | -1.64% | 9.86% | 15.05% | -0.64% |
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 3.83% | 64.06% | 26.91% | 12.96% | -0.50% | -4.01% | 25.02% | 18.17% | 9.20% |
Correlation
The correlation between GIGB and AAAU is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018 | 0.32 |
The correlation between GIGB and AAAU shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (1 year) to 0.32 (all time), 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
GIGB vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank
GIGB
AAAU
GIGB vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (GIGB) 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.
| GIGB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.25 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.93 | 1.71 | +0.22 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.11 | 4.21 | +1.90 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GIGB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.30 | 1.24 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.07 | 1.05 | -0.98 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.33 | 1.09 | -0.76 |
Drawdowns
GIGB vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GIGB drawdown since its inception was -22.25%, roughly equal to the maximum AAAU drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GIGB and AAAU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GIGB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.25% | -21.63% | -0.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.87% | -19.13% | +16.26% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.69% | -19.13% | +12.44% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.25% | -20.94% | -1.31% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.81% | -16.97% | +16.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.62% | -6.19% | +0.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.91% | 7.76% | -6.85% |
Volatility
GIGB vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (GIGB) is 1.33%, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a volatility of 5.51%. This indicates that GIGB 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
| GIGB | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.33% | 5.51% | -4.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.14% | 22.94% | -19.80% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.30% | 26.33% | -22.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.25% | 17.83% | -10.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.67% | 16.99% | -9.32% |
GIGB vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison
GIGB has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than AAAU's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
GIGB vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison
GIGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.61%, 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% |
GIGB Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.61% | 4.69% | 4.45% | 3.67% | 3.12% | 2.25% | 2.62% | 3.22% | 3.31% | 1.55% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GIGB and AAAU have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
AAAU has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to GIGB (1.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GIGB dropped -22.25% vs AAAU's -21.63%.
On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 18.60% vs 0.48% for GIGB. On fees, GIGB is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, GIGB has been the lower-risk option at 1.33%. 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 18.60% return vs 0.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GIGB is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for AAAU.
GIGB has the higher dividend yield at 4.61%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.
GIGB is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while AAAU is Gold. GIGB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index, while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for GIGB and 0.18% for AAAU.
GIGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.30 vs 1.24), 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 GIGB 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