GLDB vs. CAOS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GLDB (Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDB is a Nontraditional Bonds fund tracking the Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. GLDB is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Their -0.11 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GLDB charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

GLDB vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDB achieves a -19.84% return, which is significantly lower than CAOS's 0.76% return.

GLDB

• 1D: -2.39%
• 1M: -1.34%
• 6M: -24.53%
• YTD: -19.84%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

CAOS

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.01%
• 6M: 0.16%
• YTD: 0.76%
• 1Y: 1.73%
• 3Y*: 3.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.70%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	$6.81M	$5.39M	$5.09M
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	$494.06K	$365.51K	$391.41K

GLDB vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	-19.84%	-3.56%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.76%	-0.31%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDB and CAOS is -0.11, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

GLDB vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GLDB

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 56
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 48

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GLDB vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	GLDB	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.19	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.89	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.24	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.47	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	5.45	—

Drawdowns

GLDB vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDB drawdown since its inception was -38.30%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDB and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDB	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.30%	-3.89%	-34.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.76%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-36.21%	-1.13%	-35.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.73%	-0.92%	-16.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.34%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GLDB	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.51%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	1.07%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.04%	1.57%	+37.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.04%	4.18%	+34.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.04%	4.18%	+34.86%

GLDB vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDB has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDB vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

GLDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.24%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	0.24%	0.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDB and CAOS in my portfolio?

GLDB and CAOS have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLDB or CAOS?

On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDB or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLDB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLDB or CAOS?

GLDB has the higher dividend yield at 0.24%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between GLDB and CAOS?

GLDB is categorized as Nontraditional Bonds, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Strategy Shares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for GLDB and 0.63% for CAOS.