GMNY vs. GSEW

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

GMNY (Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF) and GSEW (Goldman Sachs Equal Weight U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMNY is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while GSEW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Solactive US Large Cap Equal Weight Index. GMNY is actively managed, while GSEW is passively managed. Over the past year, GMNY returned 6.23% vs 18.15% for GSEW. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GMNY charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for GSEW.

Performance

GMNY vs. GSEW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF (GMNY) and Goldman Sachs Equal Weight U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF (GSEW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMNY achieves a 1.62% return, which is significantly lower than GSEW's 8.86% return.

GMNY

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 1.62%
• 6M: 2.15%
• 1Y: 6.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSEW

• 1D: -1.58%
• 1M: 0.96%
• YTD: 8.86%
• 6M: 8.58%
• 1Y: 18.15%
• 3Y*: 17.09%
• 5Y*: 8.50%
• 10Y*: —

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

GMNY vs. GSEW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMNY Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF	1.62%	3.79%	0.82%
GSEW Goldman Sachs Equal Weight U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF	8.86%	11.97%	7.61%

Correlation

The correlation between GMNY and GSEW is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.15

Return for Risk

GMNY vs. GSEW — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMNY

GMNY Risk / Return Rank: 73
GMNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
GMNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GMNY Omega Ratio Rank: 84
GMNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GMNY Martin Ratio Rank: 63

GSEW

GSEW Risk / Return Rank: 47
GSEW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
GSEW Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
GSEW Omega Ratio Rank: 41
GSEW Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
GSEW Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

GMNY vs. GSEW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF (GMNY) and Goldman Sachs Equal Weight U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF (GSEW). 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.

	GMNY	GSEW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	1.49	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.32	2.13	+1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.26	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	2.36	+0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.71	9.01	+1.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GMNY vs. GSEW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMNY Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is higher than the GSEW Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMNY and GSEW, 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

	GMNY	GSEW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.29	1.49	+0.80
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.94	0.61	+0.33

Drawdowns

GMNY vs. GSEW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMNY drawdown since its inception was -4.00%, smaller than the maximum GSEW drawdown of -38.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMNY and GSEW.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMNY	GSEW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.00%	-38.65%	+34.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.21%	-7.72%	+5.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.18%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.31%	-1.58%	+1.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.92%	-5.89%	+4.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	2.02%	-1.44%

Volatility

GMNY vs. GSEW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF (GMNY) is 0.93%, while Goldman Sachs Equal Weight U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF (GSEW) has a volatility of 3.23%. This indicates that GMNY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSEW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMNY	GSEW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.93%	3.23%	-2.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.02%	9.21%	-7.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74%	12.25%	-9.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.61%	16.93%	-13.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.61%	19.20%	-15.59%

GMNY vs. GSEW - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMNY has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than GSEW's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMNY vs. GSEW - Dividend Comparison

GMNY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, more than GSEW's 1.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GMNY Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF	3.29%	3.33%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GSEW Goldman Sachs Equal Weight U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF	1.43%	1.52%	1.46%	1.64%	1.74%	1.34%	1.53%	1.66%	1.56%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMNY and GSEW in my portfolio?

GMNY and GSEW have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMNY or GSEW?

GSEW has higher volatility (3.23%) compared to GMNY (0.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMNY dropped -4.00% vs GSEW's -38.65%.

Which ETF is better, GMNY or GSEW?

On 1-year performance, GSEW leads with 18.15% vs 6.23% for GMNY. On fees, GSEW is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, GMNY has been the lower-risk option at 0.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMNY or GSEW?

Over the 1-year period, GSEW has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 6.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMNY or GSEW?

GSEW is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for GMNY.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMNY or GSEW?

GMNY has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 1.43% for GSEW.

What is the main difference between GMNY and GSEW?

GMNY is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while GSEW is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GMNY and 0.09% for GSEW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMNY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.49), 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.