GIGB vs. FLTR
GIGB (Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and FLTR (VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds - GIGB tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index while FLTR tracks the MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GIGB returned 0.45%/yr vs 4.49%/yr for FLTR. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.14% expense ratio.
Performance
GIGB vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GIGB achieves a 0.68% return, which is significantly lower than FLTR's 1.91% return.
GIGB
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.63%
- YTD
- 0.68%
- 6M
- 0.43%
- 1Y
- 6.01%
- 3Y*
- 5.10%
- 5Y*
- 0.45%
- 10Y*
- —
FLTR
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- 1.91%
- 6M
- 2.40%
- 1Y
- 5.30%
- 3Y*
- 6.10%
- 5Y*
- 4.49%
- 10Y*
- 3.51%
GIGB vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GIGB Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.68% | 7.58% | 1.68% | 8.80% | -15.80% | -1.64% | 9.86% | 15.05% | -2.76% | 2.45% |
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF | 1.91% | 5.22% | 7.38% | 7.41% | 0.74% | 0.55% | 1.44% | 5.70% | 0.30% | 1.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between GIGB and FLTR is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2017 | 0.07 |
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. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank
GIGB
FLTR
GIGB vs. FLTR - 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 VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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 | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -5.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -10.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 3.15 | -1.90 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.10 | 16.96 | -14.86 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.65 | 101.23 | -94.58 |
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 | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.40 | 6.77 | -5.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 | 2.11 | -2.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.70 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.33 | 0.53 | -0.20 |
Drawdowns
GIGB vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GIGB drawdown since its inception was -22.25%, which is greater than FLTR's maximum drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GIGB and FLTR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GIGB | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.25% | -17.84% | -4.41% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.87% | -0.31% | -2.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.69% | -1.93% | -4.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.25% | -3.06% | -19.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -17.84% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.94% | -0.04% | -0.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.62% | -0.67% | -4.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.91% | 0.05% | +0.86% |
Volatility
GIGB vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (GIGB) has a higher volatility of 1.35% compared to VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.25%. This indicates that GIGB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GIGB | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.35% | 0.25% | +1.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.14% | 0.62% | +2.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.30% | 0.79% | +3.51% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.26% | 2.13% | +5.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.67% | 5.00% | +2.67% |
GIGB vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both GIGB and FLTR have an expense ratio of 0.14%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
GIGB vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison
GIGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.61%, less than FLTR's 4.73% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF | 4.73% | 4.97% | 5.93% | 6.07% | 2.29% | 0.63% | 1.49% | 3.05% | 2.67% | 1.69% | 1.16% | 0.71% |
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% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GIGB and FLTR have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GIGB has higher volatility (1.35%) compared to FLTR (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GIGB dropped -22.25% vs FLTR's -17.84%.
On 5-year performance, FLTR leads with 4.49% vs 0.45% for GIGB. Both ETFs have the same 0.14% expense ratio. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FLTR has performed better with a 4.49% return vs 0.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GIGB and FLTR have the same expense ratio: 0.14% per year.
FLTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.73%, compared with 4.61% for GIGB.
GIGB tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index, while FLTR tracks MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and VanEck.
FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.77 vs 1.40), 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 FLTR
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