GNMA vs. PMBS
GNMA (iShares GNMA Bond ETF) and PMBS (PIMCO Mortgage-Backed Securities Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both Mortgage Backed Securities funds. GNMA is passively managed, while PMBS is actively managed. Over the past year, GNMA returned 6.56% vs 7.55% for PMBS. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GNMA charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.71%/yr for PMBS.
Performance
GNMA vs. PMBS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GNMA achieves a 0.56% return, which is significantly lower than PMBS's 0.90% return.
GNMA
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- -0.07%
- YTD
- 0.56%
- 6M
- 0.81%
- 1Y
- 6.56%
- 3Y*
- 4.20%
- 5Y*
- 0.53%
- 10Y*
- 1.23%
PMBS
- 1D
- -0.21%
- 1M
- 0.11%
- YTD
- 0.90%
- 6M
- 1.15%
- 1Y
- 7.55%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GNMA vs. PMBS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
GNMA iShares GNMA Bond ETF | 0.56% | 8.25% | -2.66% |
PMBS PIMCO Mortgage-Backed Securities Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 0.90% | 8.92% | -2.75% |
Correlation
The correlation between GNMA and PMBS is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2024 | 0.86 |
The correlation between GNMA and PMBS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GNMA vs. PMBS — Risk / Return Rank
GNMA
PMBS
GNMA vs. PMBS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA) and PIMCO Mortgage-Backed Securities Active Exchange-Traded Fund (PMBS). 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 | PMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.33 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.52 | 2.56 | -0.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.05 | 8.70 | -0.64 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GNMA | PMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | 1.80 | -0.26 |
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 | 0.83 | -0.58 |
Drawdowns
GNMA vs. PMBS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GNMA drawdown since its inception was -17.09%, which is greater than PMBS's maximum drawdown of -4.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GNMA and PMBS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GNMA | PMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.09% | -4.35% | -12.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.61% | -2.97% | +0.36% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.41% | -1.55% | +0.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.66% | -1.14% | -2.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.82% | 0.87% | -0.05% |
Volatility
GNMA vs. PMBS - Volatility Comparison
iShares GNMA Bond ETF (GNMA) and PIMCO Mortgage-Backed Securities Active Exchange-Traded Fund (PMBS) have volatilities of 1.54% and 1.52%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GNMA | PMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.54% | 1.52% | +0.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.14% | 3.10% | +0.04% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.30% | 4.22% | +0.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.61% | 4.88% | +1.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.13% | 4.88% | +0.25% |
GNMA vs. PMBS - Expense Ratio Comparison
GNMA has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PMBS's 0.71% expense ratio.
Dividends
GNMA vs. PMBS - Dividend Comparison
GNMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.24%, less than PMBS's 4.98% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GNMA iShares GNMA Bond ETF | 4.24% | 4.19% | 4.15% | 3.43% | 2.01% | 0.64% | 1.89% | 2.61% | 2.41% | 2.15% | 1.89% | 1.50% |
PMBS PIMCO Mortgage-Backed Securities Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 4.98% | 4.73% | 1.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GNMA and PMBS have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GNMA has higher volatility (1.54%) compared to PMBS (1.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GNMA dropped -17.09% vs PMBS's -4.35%.
On 1-year performance, PMBS leads with 7.55% vs 6.56% for GNMA. On fees, GNMA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, PMBS has performed better with a 7.55% return vs 6.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GNMA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for PMBS.
PMBS has the higher dividend yield at 4.98%, compared with 4.24% for GNMA.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for GNMA and 0.71% for PMBS.
PMBS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs 1.53), 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.
Find the right allocation for GNMA and PMBS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer