GLDB vs. PUSH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLDB (Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF) and PUSH (PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDB is a Nontraditional Bonds fund tracking the Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while PUSH is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by PGIM. GLDB is passively managed, while PUSH is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. GLDB charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for PUSH.

Performance

GLDB vs. PUSH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDB achieves a -7.90% return, which is significantly lower than PUSH's 1.32% return.

GLDB

• 1D: -2.17%
• 1M: -7.55%
• YTD: -7.90%
• 6M: -6.06%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PUSH

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.32%
• 6M: 1.66%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDB vs. PUSH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	-7.90%	-3.51%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	1.32%	0.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDB and PUSH is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

GLDB vs. PUSH — Risk / Return Rank

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

PUSH

PUSH Risk / Return Rank: 88
PUSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
PUSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
PUSH Omega Ratio Rank: 94
PUSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PUSH Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

GLDB vs. PUSH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB) and PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF (PUSH). 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.

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

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLDB	PUSH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.45	2.91	-3.36

Drawdowns

GLDB vs. PUSH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDB drawdown since its inception was -27.36%, which is greater than PUSH's maximum drawdown of -0.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDB and PUSH.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDB	PUSH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.36%	-0.85%	-26.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.71%	0.00%	-26.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.44%	-0.11%	-13.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.20%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GLDB	PUSH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.30%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.98%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.96%	1.52%	+38.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.96%	1.30%	+38.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.96%	1.30%	+38.66%

GLDB vs. PUSH - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDB has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than PUSH's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDB vs. PUSH - Dividend Comparison

GLDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than PUSH's 3.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	0.21%	0.19%	0.00%
PUSH PGIM Ultra Short Municipal Bond ETF	3.23%	3.45%	1.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDB and PUSH in my portfolio?

GLDB and PUSH have a correlation of -0.08, 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 PUSH?

On fees, PUSH is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDB or PUSH?

PUSH is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLDB.

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

PUSH has the higher dividend yield at 3.23%, compared with 0.21% for GLDB.

What is the main difference between GLDB and PUSH?

GLDB is categorized as Nontraditional Bonds, while PUSH is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Strategy Shares and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for GLDB and 0.15% for PUSH.