GVIP vs. GFGF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GVIP (Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF) and GFGF (Guru Favorite Stocks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GVIP is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund VIP Index, while GFGF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by GuruFocus. GVIP is passively managed, while GFGF is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GVIP returned 29.99%/yr vs 16.15%/yr for GFGF. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GVIP charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for GFGF.

Performance

GVIP vs. GFGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) and Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GVIP achieves a 16.34% return, which is significantly higher than GFGF's -1.94% return.

GVIP

• 1D: -6.01%
• 1M: 3.42%
• YTD: 16.34%
• 6M: 15.67%
• 1Y: 35.53%
• 3Y*: 29.99%
• 5Y*: 12.53%
• 10Y*: —

GFGF

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: -2.20%
• YTD: -1.94%
• 6M: -2.37%
• 1Y: 8.97%
• 3Y*: 16.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GVIP vs. GFGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	16.34%	25.27%	29.82%	39.15%	-31.95%	2.18%
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	-1.94%	13.11%	26.12%	24.03%	-20.32%	1.03%

Correlation

The correlation between GVIP and GFGF is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2021	0.81

The correlation between GVIP and GFGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.81 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GVIP vs. GFGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GVIP	GFGF
Technology	34.8%	36.0%
Financial Services	16.0%	30.1%
Communication Services	13.7%	10.9%
Industrials	11.0%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	6.6%
Healthcare	8.2%	14.1%
Utilities	6.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	3.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

GVIP vs. GFGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GVIP

GVIP Risk / Return Rank: 54
GVIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
GVIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
GVIP Omega Ratio Rank: 51
GVIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
GVIP Martin Ratio Rank: 64

GFGF

GFGF Risk / Return Rank: 19
GFGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
GFGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
GFGF Omega Ratio Rank: 19
GFGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
GFGF Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

GVIP vs. GFGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) and Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF). 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.

	GVIP	GFGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	0.71	+0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	1.05	+1.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.13	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	0.59	+2.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.04	2.01	+9.03

GVIP vs. GFGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVIP Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is higher than the GFGF Sharpe Ratio of 0.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVIP and GFGF, 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

GVIP vs. GFGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GVIP drawdown since its inception was -37.09%, which is greater than GFGF's maximum drawdown of -27.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GVIP and GFGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GVIP	GFGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.09%	-27.98%	-9.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.67%	-15.22%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.29%	-15.60%	-7.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.01%	-3.87%	-2.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.56%	-8.20%	+0.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	4.46%	-1.23%

Volatility

GVIP vs. GFGF - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) has a higher volatility of 11.43% compared to Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) at 4.03%. This indicates that GVIP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GFGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GVIP	GFGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.43%	4.03%	+7.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.87%	9.95%	+7.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.01%	12.74%	+8.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.83%	19.05%	+2.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.87%	19.05%	+2.82%

GVIP vs. GFGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GVIP has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than GFGF's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

GVIP vs. GFGF - Dividend Comparison

GVIP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%, more than GFGF's 0.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	0.22%	0.21%	0.10%	0.08%	0.42%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	0.29%	0.34%	0.29%	0.77%	0.02%	0.00%	0.12%	0.77%	0.44%	0.45%	0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GVIP and GFGF in my portfolio?

GVIP and GFGF have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GVIP or GFGF?

GVIP has higher volatility (11.43%) compared to GFGF (4.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVIP dropped -37.09% vs GFGF's -27.98%.

Which ETF is better, GVIP or GFGF?

On 3-year performance, GVIP leads with 29.99% vs 16.15% for GFGF. On fees, GVIP is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, GFGF has been the lower-risk option at 4.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GVIP or GFGF?

Over the 3-year period, GVIP has performed better with a 29.99% return vs 16.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GVIP or GFGF?

GVIP is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for GFGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GVIP or GFGF?

GVIP has the higher dividend yield at 0.29%, compared with 0.22% for GFGF.

What is the main difference between GVIP and GFGF?

GVIP is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while GFGF is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and GuruFocus. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GVIP and 0.65% for GFGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVIP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.70 vs 0.71), 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.