GNMA vs. MTBA

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GNMA (iShares GNMA Bond ETF) and MTBA (Simplify MBS ETF) are both Mortgage Backed Securities funds. GNMA is passively managed, while MTBA is actively managed. Over the past year, GNMA returned 5.88% vs 4.76% for MTBA. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.15% expense ratio.

Performance

GNMA vs. MTBA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA) and Simplify MBS ETF (MTBA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GNMA achieves a 0.67% return, which is significantly higher than MTBA's -0.13% return.

GNMA

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 0.67%
• 6M: 1.08%
• 1Y: 5.88%
• 3Y*: 4.33%
• 5Y*: 0.55%
• 10Y*: 1.23%

MTBA

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: -0.13%
• 6M: 0.34%
• 1Y: 4.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GNMA vs. MTBA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GNMA iShares GNMA Bond ETF	0.67%	8.25%	1.07%	6.37%
MTBA Simplify MBS ETF	-0.13%	7.74%	1.99%	3.64%

Correlation

The correlation between GNMA and MTBA is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2023	0.85

The correlation between GNMA and MTBA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GNMA vs. MTBA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GNMA

GNMA Risk / Return Rank: 42
GNMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
GNMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
GNMA Omega Ratio Rank: 38
GNMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
GNMA Martin Ratio Rank: 45

MTBA

MTBA Risk / Return Rank: 42
MTBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
MTBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
MTBA Omega Ratio Rank: 48
MTBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
MTBA Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

GNMA vs. MTBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA) and Simplify MBS ETF (MTBA). 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.

	GNMA	MTBA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.40	1.56	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	2.20	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.30	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.26	1.69	+0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.20	5.74	+1.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GNMA vs. MTBA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GNMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is comparable to the MTBA Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GNMA and MTBA, 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

	GNMA	MTBA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.40	1.56	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	1.31	-1.06

Drawdowns

GNMA vs. MTBA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GNMA drawdown since its inception was -17.09%, which is greater than MTBA's maximum drawdown of -3.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GNMA and MTBA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GNMA	MTBA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.09%	-3.48%	-13.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.61%	-2.82%	+0.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-17.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.30%	-1.50%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.66%	-0.79%	-2.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	0.83%	-0.01%

Volatility

GNMA vs. MTBA - Volatility Comparison

iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA) has a higher volatility of 1.54% compared to Simplify MBS ETF (MTBA) at 1.33%. This indicates that GNMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MTBA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GNMA	MTBA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.54%	1.33%	+0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.14%	2.47%	+0.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.29%	3.10%	+1.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.61%	3.95%	+2.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.13%	3.95%	+1.18%

GNMA vs. MTBA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GNMA and MTBA have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GNMA vs. MTBA - Dividend Comparison

GNMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.23%, less than MTBA's 6.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GNMA iShares GNMA Bond ETF	4.23%	4.19%	4.15%	3.43%	2.01%	0.64%	1.89%	2.61%	2.41%	2.15%	1.89%	1.50%
MTBA Simplify MBS ETF	6.08%	5.98%	6.03%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GNMA and MTBA in my portfolio?

GNMA and MTBA have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GNMA or MTBA?

GNMA has higher volatility (1.54%) compared to MTBA (1.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GNMA dropped -17.09% vs MTBA's -3.48%.

Which ETF is better, GNMA or MTBA?

On 1-year performance, GNMA leads with 5.88% vs 4.76% for MTBA. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, MTBA has been the lower-risk option at 1.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GNMA or MTBA?

Over the 1-year period, GNMA has performed better with a 5.88% return vs 4.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GNMA or MTBA?

GNMA and MTBA have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GNMA or MTBA?

MTBA has the higher dividend yield at 6.08%, compared with 4.23% for GNMA.

What is the main difference between GNMA and MTBA?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Simplify.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MTBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 1.40), 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.