GSC vs. SCDS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GSC (Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF) and SCDS (JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GSC returned 33.32% vs 45.21% for SCDS. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GSC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for SCDS.

Performance

GSC vs. SCDS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF (GSC) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSC achieves a 21.55% return, which is significantly lower than SCDS's 26.51% return.

GSC

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: 7.98%
• YTD: 21.55%
• 6M: 18.78%
• 1Y: 33.32%
• 3Y*: 28.34%
• 5Y*: 24.30%
• 10Y*: 11.56%

SCDS

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: 4.83%
• YTD: 26.51%
• 6M: 23.71%
• 1Y: 45.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GSC vs. SCDS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GSC Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF	21.55%	6.29%	8.06%
SCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF	26.51%	11.27%	7.26%

Correlation

The correlation between GSC and SCDS is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 8, 2024	0.80

The correlation between GSC and SCDS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

GSC vs. SCDS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSC	SCDS
Technology	22.7%	23.8%
Industrials	19.2%	16.3%
Financial Services	16.1%	15.2%
Healthcare	13.6%	13.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	10.3%
Basic Materials	5.2%	3.2%
Energy	3.9%	4.8%
Utilities	3.0%	2.3%
Real Estate	2.6%	5.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	2.5%
Communication Services	0.9%	2.4%

Return for Risk

GSC vs. SCDS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GSC

GSC Risk / Return Rank: 46
GSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
GSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GSC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
GSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
GSC Martin Ratio Rank: 19

SCDS

SCDS Risk / Return Rank: 85
SCDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
SCDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
SCDS Omega Ratio Rank: 76
SCDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
SCDS Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

GSC vs. SCDS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF (GSC) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS). 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.

	GSC	SCDS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.08	2.44	-2.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.83	3.38	+0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.99	1.41	+0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.57	5.13	-4.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.98	17.82	-15.84

GSC vs. SCDS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSC Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is lower than the SCDS Sharpe Ratio of 2.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSC and SCDS, 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

GSC vs. SCDS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSC drawdown since its inception was -88.63%, which is greater than SCDS's maximum drawdown of -26.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSC and SCDS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSC	SCDS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.63%	-26.71%	-61.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-58.25%	-8.85%	-49.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.25%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-58.25%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.81%	-1.08%	-26.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-59.18%	-5.16%	-54.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.91%	2.54%	+14.37%

Volatility

GSC vs. SCDS - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF (GSC) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS) have volatilities of 6.31% and 6.18%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	GSC	SCDS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.31%	6.18%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	187.41%	13.63%	+173.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	403.80%	18.68%	+385.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	218.85%	21.25%	+197.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	160.44%	21.25%	+139.19%

GSC vs. SCDS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than SCDS's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSC vs. SCDS - Dividend Comparison

GSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than SCDS's 1.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GSC Goldman Sachs Small Cap Core Equity ETF	0.16%	0.16%	0.66%	0.11%
SCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF	1.10%	1.15%	0.42%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSC and SCDS in my portfolio?

GSC and SCDS have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GSC or SCDS?

GSC has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to SCDS (6.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSC dropped -88.63% vs SCDS's -26.71%.

Which ETF is better, GSC or SCDS?

On 1-year performance, SCDS leads with 45.21% vs 33.32% for GSC. On fees, SCDS is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, SCDS has been the lower-risk option at 6.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSC or SCDS?

Over the 1-year period, SCDS has performed better with a 45.21% return vs 33.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSC or SCDS?

SCDS is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GSC or SCDS?

SCDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.10%, compared with 0.16% for GSC.

What is the main difference between GSC and SCDS?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GSC and 0.40% for SCDS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 0.08), 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.