GPRF vs. PFFD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GPRF (Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF) and PFFD (Global X U.S. Preferred ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds - GPRF tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs US Preferred Stock and Hybrids Index while PFFD tracks the ICE BofA Diversified Core U.S. Preferred Securities Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GPRF returned 5.45% vs 6.96% for PFFD. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GPRF charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for PFFD.

Performance

GPRF vs. PFFD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF (GPRF) and Global X U.S. Preferred ETF (PFFD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GPRF achieves a 1.29% return, which is significantly lower than PFFD's 1.75% return.

GPRF

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.33%
• YTD: 1.29%
• 6M: 1.49%
• 1Y: 5.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PFFD

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.10%
• YTD: 1.75%
• 6M: 1.42%
• 1Y: 6.96%
• 3Y*: 5.74%
• 5Y*: -0.48%
• 10Y*: —

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

GPRF vs. PFFD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GPRF Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF	1.29%	6.17%	2.49%
PFFD Global X U.S. Preferred ETF	1.75%	3.22%	1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between GPRF and PFFD is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2024	0.68

The correlation between GPRF and PFFD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GPRF vs. PFFD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GPRF

GPRF Risk / Return Rank: 43
GPRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
GPRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GPRF Omega Ratio Rank: 54
GPRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
GPRF Martin Ratio Rank: 41

PFFD

PFFD Risk / Return Rank: 26
PFFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
PFFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
PFFD Omega Ratio Rank: 24
PFFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
PFFD Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

GPRF vs. PFFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF (GPRF) and Global X U.S. Preferred ETF (PFFD). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GPRF	PFFD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.47	0.95	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	1.38	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.16	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	1.17	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.08	3.42	+2.67

GPRF vs. PFFD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GPRF Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is higher than the PFFD Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GPRF and PFFD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GPRF vs. PFFD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GPRF drawdown since its inception was -4.36%, smaller than the maximum PFFD drawdown of -30.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GPRF and PFFD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GPRF	PFFD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.36%	-30.93%	+26.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.20%	-5.97%	+1.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.84%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-4.19%	+3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.89%	-6.57%	+5.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.90%	2.04%	-1.14%

Volatility

GPRF vs. PFFD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF (GPRF) is 0.67%, while Global X U.S. Preferred ETF (PFFD) has a volatility of 1.99%. This indicates that GPRF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PFFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GPRF	PFFD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.67%	1.99%	-1.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.15%	5.44%	-2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.72%	7.35%	-3.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.91%	11.01%	-7.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.91%	12.73%	-8.82%

GPRF vs. PFFD - Expense Ratio Comparison

GPRF has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than PFFD's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

GPRF vs. PFFD - Dividend Comparison

GPRF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.65%, less than PFFD's 6.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GPRF Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF	5.65%	5.38%	2.10%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFFD Global X U.S. Preferred ETF	6.40%	6.37%	6.42%	6.49%	6.63%	5.09%	5.17%	5.48%	6.21%	1.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GPRF and PFFD in my portfolio?

GPRF and PFFD have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GPRF or PFFD?

PFFD has higher volatility (1.99%) compared to GPRF (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GPRF dropped -4.36% vs PFFD's -30.93%.

Which ETF is better, GPRF or PFFD?

On 1-year performance, PFFD leads with 6.96% vs 5.45% for GPRF. On fees, PFFD is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, GPRF has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GPRF or PFFD?

Over the 1-year period, PFFD has performed better with a 6.96% return vs 5.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GPRF or PFFD?

PFFD is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for GPRF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GPRF or PFFD?

PFFD has the higher dividend yield at 6.40%, compared with 5.65% for GPRF.

What is the main difference between GPRF and PFFD?

GPRF tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs US Preferred Stock and Hybrids Index, while PFFD tracks ICE BofA Diversified Core U.S. Preferred Securities Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GPRF and 0.23% for PFFD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GPRF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 vs 0.95), 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.