GMNY vs. USL

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GMNY (Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF) and USL (United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - GMNY is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while USL is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the 12 Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. GMNY is actively managed, while USL is passively managed. Over the past year, GMNY returned 6.34% vs 56.55% for USL. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. GMNY charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for USL.

Performance

GMNY vs. USL - 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 United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMNY achieves a 1.80% return, which is significantly lower than USL's 60.58% return.

GMNY

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.66%
• YTD: 1.80%
• 6M: 2.29%
• 1Y: 6.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

USL

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -1.98%
• YTD: 60.58%
• 6M: 56.11%
• 1Y: 56.55%
• 3Y*: 17.93%
• 5Y*: 17.05%
• 10Y*: 10.57%

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

GMNY vs. USL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMNY Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF	1.80%	3.79%	0.82%
USL United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP	60.58%	-12.37%	-3.11%

Correlation

The correlation between GMNY and USL is -0.25, 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	-0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	-0.22

Return for Risk

GMNY vs. USL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMNY

GMNY Risk / Return Rank: 71
GMNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
GMNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
GMNY Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GMNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
GMNY Martin Ratio Rank: 61

USL

USL Risk / Return Rank: 56
USL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
USL Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
USL Omega Ratio Rank: 54
USL Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
USL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. USL - 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 United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). 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	USL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.33	1.99	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	2.53	+0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.33	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	3.39	-0.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.89	6.85	+4.03
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. USL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMNY Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is comparable to the USL Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMNY and USL, 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	USL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.33	1.99	+0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.57	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.33	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.96	0.01	+0.96

Drawdowns

GMNY vs. USL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMNY drawdown since its inception was -4.00%, smaller than the maximum USL drawdown of -89.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMNY and USL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMNY	USL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.00%	-89.06%	+85.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.21%	-16.76%	+14.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.33%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.82%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-66.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.14%	-39.10%	+38.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.92%	-61.45%	+60.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	8.27%	-7.69%

Volatility

GMNY vs. USL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF (GMNY) is 0.94%, while United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL) has a volatility of 10.57%. This indicates that GMNY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMNY	USL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.94%	10.57%	-9.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.01%	23.34%	-21.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.75%	28.59%	-25.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.61%	30.09%	-26.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.61%	32.34%	-28.73%

GMNY vs. USL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMNY has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than USL's 0.88% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMNY vs. USL - Dividend Comparison

GMNY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, while USL has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GMNY Goldman Sachs Dynamic New York Municipal Income ETF	3.29%	3.33%	1.47%
USL United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMNY and USL in my portfolio?

GMNY and USL have a correlation of -0.25, 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 USL?

USL has higher volatility (10.57%) compared to GMNY (0.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMNY dropped -4.00% vs USL's -89.06%.

Which ETF is better, GMNY or USL?

On 1-year performance, USL leads with 56.55% vs 6.34% for GMNY. On fees, GMNY is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, GMNY has been the lower-risk option at 0.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMNY or USL?

Over the 1-year period, USL has performed better with a 56.55% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMNY or USL?

GMNY is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.88% for USL.

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

GMNY has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 0.00% for USL.

What is the main difference between GMNY and USL?

GMNY is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while USL is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for GMNY and 0.88% for USL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMNY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.99), 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.