GINN vs. AIS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GINN (Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF) and AIS (VistaShares Artificial Intelligence Supercycle ETF) are both Technology Equities funds. GINN is passively managed, while AIS is actively managed. Over the past year, GINN returned 25.65% vs 226.72% for AIS. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GINN charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for AIS.

Performance

GINN vs. AIS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) and VistaShares Artificial Intelligence Supercycle ETF (AIS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GINN achieves a 8.64% return, which is significantly lower than AIS's 118.61% return.

GINN

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 5.38%
• YTD: 8.64%
• 6M: 7.90%
• 1Y: 25.65%
• 3Y*: 19.95%
• 5Y*: 6.82%
• 10Y*: —

AIS

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: 35.87%
• YTD: 118.61%
• 6M: 122.65%
• 1Y: 226.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GINN vs. AIS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GINN Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF	8.64%	20.25%	-3.56%
AIS VistaShares Artificial Intelligence Supercycle ETF	118.61%	58.35%	-4.92%

Correlation

The correlation between GINN and AIS is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024	0.78

The correlation between GINN and AIS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

GINN vs. AIS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GINN	AIS
Technology	32.4%	84.6%
Healthcare	18.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	14.6%	-
Financial Services	11.4%	-0.0%
Communication Services	10.8%	-
Industrials	6.1%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	-
Utilities	1.9%	3.2%
Energy	1.4%	-
Real Estate	0.8%	-
Basic Materials	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

GINN vs. AIS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GINN

GINN Risk / Return Rank: 44
GINN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
GINN Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GINN Omega Ratio Rank: 43
GINN Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
GINN Martin Ratio Rank: 44

AIS

AIS Risk / Return Rank: 97
AIS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
AIS Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
AIS Omega Ratio Rank: 96
AIS Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
AIS Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

GINN vs. AIS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) and VistaShares Artificial Intelligence Supercycle ETF (AIS). 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.

	GINN	AIS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	6.34	-4.74
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.25	5.78	-3.53
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.80	-0.52
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	14.41	-12.45
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.06	47.43	-40.38
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GINN vs. AIS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GINN Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is lower than the AIS Sharpe Ratio of 6.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GINN and AIS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GINN	AIS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.61	6.34	-4.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	3.24	-2.79

Drawdowns

GINN vs. AIS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GINN drawdown since its inception was -41.25%, which is greater than AIS's maximum drawdown of -32.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GINN and AIS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GINN	AIS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.25%	-32.78%	-8.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.18%	-15.84%	+2.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.25%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.63%	0.00%	-1.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.37%	-5.45%	-7.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.64%	4.80%	-1.16%

Volatility

GINN vs. AIS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) is 3.98%, while VistaShares Artificial Intelligence Supercycle ETF (AIS) has a volatility of 16.12%. This indicates that GINN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AIS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GINN	AIS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.98%	16.12%	-12.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.04%	29.95%	-17.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.06%	36.00%	-19.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.33%	38.04%	-16.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.05%	38.04%	-16.99%

GINN vs. AIS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GINN has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than AIS's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

GINN vs. AIS - Dividend Comparison

GINN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, while AIS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AIS VistaShares Artificial Intelligence Supercycle ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GINN Goldman Sachs ETF Trust Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF	1.16%	1.26%	1.26%	1.01%	0.69%	0.67%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GINN and AIS in my portfolio?

GINN and AIS have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GINN or AIS?

AIS has higher volatility (16.12%) compared to GINN (3.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GINN dropped -41.25% vs AIS's -32.78%.

Which ETF is better, GINN or AIS?

On 1-year performance, AIS leads with 226.72% vs 25.65% for GINN. On fees, GINN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, GINN has been the lower-risk option at 3.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GINN or AIS?

Over the 1-year period, AIS has performed better with a 226.72% return vs 25.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GINN or AIS?

GINN is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for AIS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GINN or AIS?

GINN has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 0.00% for AIS.

What is the main difference between GINN and AIS?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and VistaShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for GINN and 0.75% for AIS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AIS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.34 vs 1.61), 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.