GMUB vs. GVIP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GMUB (Goldman Sachs Municipal Income ETF) and GVIP (Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMUB is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while GVIP is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund VIP Index. GMUB is actively managed, while GVIP is passively managed. Over the past year, GMUB returned 7.61% vs 38.46% for GVIP. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GMUB charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for GVIP.

Performance

GMUB vs. GVIP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Municipal Income ETF (GMUB) and Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMUB achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than GVIP's 16.55% return.

GMUB

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 2.38%
• 1Y: 7.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GVIP

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 7.07%
• YTD: 16.55%
• 6M: 18.55%
• 1Y: 38.46%
• 3Y*: 30.64%
• 5Y*: 13.25%
• 10Y*: —

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

GMUB vs. GVIP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMUB Goldman Sachs Municipal Income ETF	1.59%	5.99%	1.08%
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	16.55%	25.27%	14.40%

Correlation

The correlation between GMUB and GVIP 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	0.10

The correlation between GMUB and GVIP shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (all time) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GMUB vs. GVIP — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMUB

GMUB Risk / Return Rank: 78
GMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
GMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
GMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
GMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 63

GVIP

GVIP Risk / Return Rank: 61
GVIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
GVIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
GVIP Omega Ratio Rank: 61
GVIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
GVIP Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

GMUB vs. GVIP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Municipal Income ETF (GMUB) and Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP). 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.

	GMUB	GVIP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	2.13	+0.65
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.29	2.84	+1.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.37	+0.19
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	2.87	+0.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.69	12.50	-0.81
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GMUB vs. GVIP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMUB Sharpe Ratio is 2.79, which is higher than the GVIP Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMUB and GVIP, 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

	GMUB	GVIP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.79	2.13	+0.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.63	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.42	0.82	+0.60

Drawdowns

GMUB vs. GVIP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMUB drawdown since its inception was -3.28%, smaller than the maximum GVIP drawdown of -37.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMUB and GVIP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMUB	GVIP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.28%	-37.09%	+33.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.29%	-13.67%	+11.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.29%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.43%	0.00%	-0.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.63%	-7.60%	+6.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.63%	3.14%	-2.51%

Volatility

GMUB vs. GVIP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Municipal Income ETF (GMUB) is 0.79%, while Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) has a volatility of 5.39%. This indicates that GMUB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GVIP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMUB	GVIP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.79%	5.39%	-4.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.90%	14.49%	-12.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.75%	18.13%	-15.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.30%	21.30%	-18.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.30%	21.65%	-18.35%

GMUB vs. GVIP - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMUB has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than GVIP's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMUB vs. GVIP - Dividend Comparison

GMUB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.26%, more than GVIP's 0.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GMUB Goldman Sachs Municipal Income ETF	3.26%	3.14%	1.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	0.29%	0.34%	0.29%	0.77%	0.02%	0.00%	0.12%	0.77%	0.44%	0.45%	0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMUB and GVIP in my portfolio?

GMUB and GVIP 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, GMUB or GVIP?

GVIP has higher volatility (5.39%) compared to GMUB (0.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMUB dropped -3.28% vs GVIP's -37.09%.

Which ETF is better, GMUB or GVIP?

On 1-year performance, GVIP leads with 38.46% vs 7.61% for GMUB. On fees, GMUB is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, GMUB has been the lower-risk option at 0.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMUB or GVIP?

Over the 1-year period, GVIP has performed better with a 38.46% return vs 7.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMUB or GVIP?

GMUB is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for GVIP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMUB or GVIP?

GMUB has the higher dividend yield at 3.26%, compared with 0.29% for GVIP.

What is the main difference between GMUB and GVIP?

GMUB is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while GVIP is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for GMUB and 0.45% for GVIP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMUB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.13), 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.