GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR Bloomberg UK Gilt UCITS ETF (GLTY.L) and Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L).
GLTY.L and GBPG.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GLTY.L is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the FTSE Act UK Cnvt Gilts All Stocks TR GBP. It was launched on May 17, 2012. GBPG.L is a passively managed fund by Goldman Sachs that tracks the performance of the FTSE Act UK Cnvt Gilts All Stocks TR GBP. It was launched on Sep 7, 2021. Both GLTY.L and GBPG.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: GLTY.L or GBPG.L.
Key characteristics
| GLTY.L | GBPG.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 1.40% | 2.43% |
| 1Y Return | 9.09% | 7.58% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 39.38% | 26.46% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.16 | 1.84 |
| Daily Std Dev | 8.25% | 4.22% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.61% | -7.18% |
| Current Drawdown | -12.12% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLTY.L and GBPG.L is 0.87, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, GLTY.L achieves a 1.40% return, which is significantly lower than GBPG.L's 2.43% return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLTY.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than GBPG.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg UK Gilt UCITS ETF (GLTY.L) and Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L). 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.
Dividends
GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L - Dividend Comparison
GLTY.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.57%, less than GBPG.L's 4.01% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLTY.L SPDR Bloomberg UK Gilt UCITS ETF | 2.57% | 74.77% | 114.99% | 0.84% | 1.06% | 1.20% | 1.26% | 1.58% | 1.65% | 1.87% | 1.81% | 2.16% |
GBPG.L Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) | 4.01% | 3.35% | 62.57% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLTY.L drawdown since its inception was -23.61%, which is greater than GBPG.L's maximum drawdown of -7.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTY.L and GBPG.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GLTY.L vs. GBPG.L - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg UK Gilt UCITS ETF (GLTY.L) has a higher volatility of 2.45% compared to Goldman Sachs Access UK Gilts 1-10 Years UCITS ETF Class GBP (Dist) (GBPG.L) at 1.98%. This indicates that GLTY.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBPG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.