PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GPIQ vs. CLOZ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) and Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GPIQ achieves a 14.88% return, which is significantly higher than CLOZ's 2.44% return.


GPIQ

1D
1.46%
1M
0.97%
YTD
14.88%
6M
14.06%
1Y
33.04%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CLOZ

1D
0.04%
1M
0.39%
YTD
2.44%
6M
2.91%
1Y
6.07%
3Y*
10.45%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GPIQ
Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
14.88%19.77%23.22%15.38%
CLOZ
Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF
2.44%5.99%11.85%3.51%

Correlation

The correlation between GPIQ and CLOZ is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2023

0.23

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

GPIQ vs. CLOZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GPIQ
GPIQ Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
GPIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GPIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
GPIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
GPIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
GPIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

CLOZ
CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) and Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ). 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.


GPIQCLOZDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.45

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.49

1.56

+1.93

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.21

5.19

+10.02

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GPIQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is higher than the CLOZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GPIQ and CLOZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GPIQCLOZDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.36

1.77

+0.59

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.67

2.75

-1.08

Drawdowns

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GPIQ drawdown since its inception was -21.06%, which is greater than CLOZ's maximum drawdown of -5.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GPIQ and CLOZ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GPIQCLOZDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.06%

-5.32%

-15.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.51%

-3.90%

-5.61%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.08%

-0.21%

-2.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.27%

-0.38%

-1.89%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.18%

1.17%

+1.01%

Volatility

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) has a higher volatility of 5.54% compared to Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) at 0.47%. This indicates that GPIQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLOZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GPIQCLOZDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.54%

0.47%

+5.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.32%

3.13%

+8.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.07%

3.44%

+10.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.63%

3.80%

+13.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.63%

3.80%

+13.83%

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GPIQ has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CLOZ's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

GPIQ vs. CLOZ - Dividend Comparison

GPIQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.60%, more than CLOZ's 7.40% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
CLOZ
Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF
7.40%7.63%9.09%8.81%
GPIQ
Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
9.60%9.81%9.18%1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions


GPIQ and CLOZ have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GPIQ has higher volatility (5.54%) compared to CLOZ (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GPIQ dropped -21.06% vs CLOZ's -5.32%.

On 1-year performance, GPIQ leads with 33.04% vs 6.07% for CLOZ. On fees, GPIQ is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, CLOZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, GPIQ has performed better with a 33.04% return vs 6.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GPIQ is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLOZ.

GPIQ has the higher dividend yield at 9.60%, compared with 7.40% for CLOZ.

GPIQ is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CLOZ is CLO. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Panagram. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for GPIQ and 0.50% for CLOZ.

GPIQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.77), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GPIQ and CLOZ

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