GTIP vs. CPII
GTIP (Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF) and CPII (American Beacon Ionic Inflation Protection ETF) are both Inflation-Protected Bonds funds. GTIP is passively managed, while CPII is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GTIP returned 3.77%/yr vs 4.00%/yr for CPII. Their -0.27 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GTIP charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for CPII.
Performance
GTIP vs. CPII - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GTIP achieves a 0.58% return, which is significantly lower than CPII's 3.09% return.
GTIP
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- -0.65%
- 6M
- 0.23%
- YTD
- 0.58%
- 1Y
- 1.79%
- 3Y*
- 3.77%
- 5Y*
- 0.27%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.14%
CPII
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 0.11%
- 6M
- 2.49%
- YTD
- 3.09%
- 1Y
- 3.03%
- 3Y*
- 4.00%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.59%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $7.01K | $4.83K | $26.03K | |
| $1.26M | $1.13M | $1.84M |
GTIP vs. CPII - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GTIP Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF | 0.58% | 6.63% | 2.04% | 3.88% | -3.71% |
CPII American Beacon Ionic Inflation Protection ETF | 3.09% | 2.76% | 6.05% | 1.79% | 1.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between GTIP and CPII is -0.03, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.03 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2022 | -0.27 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between GTIP and CPII has weakened: their correlation has moved from -0.27 to -0.03, meaning they move in opposite directions less often than they have historically.
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
GTIP vs. CPII — Risk / Return Rank
GTIP
CPII
GTIP vs. CPII - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) and American Beacon Ionic Inflation Protection ETF (CPII). 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.
| GTIP | CPII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.53 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.10 | 1.17 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.89 | 1.43 | -0.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.50 | 3.43 | -0.93 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GTIP vs. CPII - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GTIP drawdown since its inception was -14.31%, which is greater than CPII's maximum drawdown of -6.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GTIP and CPII.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GTIP | CPII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.31% | -6.40% | -7.91% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.02% | -2.13% | +0.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.69% | -4.39% | +0.70% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.31% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.27% | -1.53% | +0.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.16% | -1.61% | -2.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.72% | 0.88% | -0.16% |
Volatility
GTIP vs. CPII - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) is 0.69%, while American Beacon Ionic Inflation Protection ETF (CPII) has a volatility of 0.97%. This indicates that GTIP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CPII based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GTIP | CPII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.69% | 0.97% | -0.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.50% | 2.95% | -0.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.25% | 3.31% | -0.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.04% | 5.84% | +0.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.97% | 5.84% | +0.13% |
GTIP vs. CPII - Expense Ratio Comparison
GTIP has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CPII's 0.74% expense ratio.
Dividends
GTIP vs. CPII - Dividend Comparison
GTIP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.98%, more than CPII's 4.64% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CPII American Beacon Ionic Inflation Protection ETF | 4.64% | 4.20% | 5.47% | 5.86% | 2.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GTIP Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF | 5.98% | 4.58% | 3.52% | 2.77% | 6.47% | 3.82% | 1.04% | 2.34% | 0.66% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GTIP and CPII have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CPII has higher volatility (0.97%) compared to GTIP (0.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GTIP dropped -14.31% vs CPII's -6.40%.
On 3-year performance, CPII leads with 4.00% vs 3.77% for GTIP. On fees, GTIP is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GTIP has been the lower-risk option at 0.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CPII has performed better with a 4.00% return vs 3.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GTIP is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for CPII.
GTIP has the higher dividend yield at 5.98%, compared with 4.64% for CPII.
They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and American Beacon. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GTIP and 0.74% for CPII.
CPII currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.92 vs 0.55), 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 GTIP and CPII
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