GLD vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLD (SPDR Gold Shares) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLD is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GLD returned 32.04% vs 4.57% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. GLD charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

GLD vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLD achieves a 2.92% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.70% return.

GLD

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -1.65%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 6M: 5.43%
• 1Y: 32.04%
• 3Y*: 31.09%
• 5Y*: 18.15%
• 10Y*: 13.12%

RBIL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 6M: 2.79%
• 1Y: 4.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLD vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	2.92%	47.54%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.70%	2.91%

Correlation

The correlation between GLD and RBIL is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	-0.06

Return for Risk

GLD vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLD

GLD Risk / Return Rank: 32
GLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLD Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
GLD Martin Ratio Rank: 28

RBIL

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

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.

GLD vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.

	GLD	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.21	5.01	-3.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	7.92	-6.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	2.39	-1.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	17.00	-15.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.15	70.66	-66.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLD vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLD and RBIL, 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

	GLD	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.21	5.01	-3.80
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.01	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	4.28	-3.68

Drawdowns

GLD vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLD drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLD and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLD	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.56%	-0.50%	-45.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.21%	-0.27%	-18.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.21%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.03%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.00%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.75%	0.00%	-17.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.16%	-0.06%	-16.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.73%	0.07%	+7.66%

Volatility

GLD vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) has a higher volatility of 5.51% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that GLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLD	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.51%	0.30%	+5.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.16%	0.79%	+22.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.61%	0.92%	+25.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.00%	1.05%	+16.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.95%	1.05%	+14.90%

GLD vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLD has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLD vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

GLD has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.60%.

Position	TTM	2025
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	0.00%	0.00%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.60%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLD and RBIL in my portfolio?

GLD and RBIL 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.

Which is riskier, GLD or RBIL?

GLD has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLD dropped -45.56% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

Which ETF is better, GLD or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, GLD leads with 32.04% vs 4.57% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLD or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, GLD has performed better with a 32.04% return vs 4.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLD or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GLD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLD or RBIL?

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 0.00% for GLD.

What is the main difference between GLD and RBIL?

GLD is categorized as Gold, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. GLD tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GLD and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 1.21), 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.