GUMI vs. AAAU

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GUMI (Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GUMI is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. GUMI is actively managed, while AAAU is passively managed. Over the past year, GUMI returned 3.17% vs 32.55% for AAAU. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GUMI charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.

Performance

GUMI vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GUMI achieves a 1.12% return, which is significantly lower than AAAU's 3.83% return.

GUMI

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 1.12%
• 6M: 1.35%
• 1Y: 3.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AAAU

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -1.63%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 6M: 6.34%
• 1Y: 32.55%
• 3Y*: 31.47%
• 5Y*: 18.60%
• 10Y*: —

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

GUMI vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	1.12%	3.39%	1.52%
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	3.83%	64.06%	11.00%

Correlation

The correlation between GUMI and AAAU is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2024	0.10

Return for Risk

GUMI vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

GUMI

GUMI Risk / Return Rank: 93
GUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
GUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 96

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 34
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 39
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

GUMI vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.

	GUMI	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.91	1.24	+1.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.68	1.64	+3.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.64	1.25	+0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.90	1.71	+7.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	37.70	4.21	+33.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GUMI vs. AAAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GUMI Sharpe Ratio is 2.91, which is higher than the AAAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GUMI and AAAU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GUMI	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.91	1.24	+1.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.05	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.32	1.09	+2.22

Drawdowns

GUMI vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GUMI drawdown since its inception was -0.48%, smaller than the maximum AAAU drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GUMI and AAAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GUMI	AAAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.48%	-21.63%	+21.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.36%	-19.13%	+18.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.13%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.94%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-16.97%	+16.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.05%	-6.19%	+6.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.08%	7.76%	-7.68%

Volatility

GUMI vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF (GUMI) is 0.25%, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a volatility of 5.51%. This indicates that GUMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GUMI	AAAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.25%	5.51%	-5.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.55%	22.94%	-22.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.10%	26.33%	-25.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.99%	17.83%	-16.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.99%	16.99%	-16.00%

GUMI vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

GUMI has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than AAAU's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GUMI vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison

GUMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, while AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GUMI Goldman Sachs Ultra Short Municipal Income ETF	2.77%	2.95%	1.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GUMI and AAAU in my portfolio?

GUMI and AAAU have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GUMI or AAAU?

AAAU has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to GUMI (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GUMI dropped -0.48% vs AAAU's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, GUMI or AAAU?

On 1-year performance, AAAU leads with 32.55% vs 3.17% for GUMI. On fees, GUMI is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, GUMI has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GUMI or AAAU?

Over the 1-year period, AAAU has performed better with a 32.55% return vs 3.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GUMI or AAAU?

GUMI is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for AAAU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GUMI or AAAU?

GUMI has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.

What is the main difference between GUMI and AAAU?

GUMI is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while AAAU is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for GUMI and 0.18% for AAAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 1.24), 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.