GVIP vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GVIP (Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GVIP is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund VIP Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GVIP returned 45.11% vs 3.95% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.21, they often move in opposite directions. GVIP charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

GVIP vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GVIP achieves a 23.78% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.31% return.

GVIP

• 1D: 3.35%
• 1M: 10.03%
• YTD: 23.78%
• 6M: 23.16%
• 1Y: 45.11%
• 3Y*: 32.71%
• 5Y*: 14.11%
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.20%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 6M: 2.35%
• 1Y: 3.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GVIP vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	23.78%	20.11%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.31%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between GVIP and RBIL is -0.22, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.21

Return for Risk

GVIP vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GVIP

GVIP Risk / Return Rank: 71
GVIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
GVIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
GVIP Omega Ratio Rank: 69
GVIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
GVIP Martin Ratio Rank: 76

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	4.18	-1.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.99	6.39	-3.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	2.06	-0.67
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.32	7.59	-4.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.12	44.07	-29.95

GVIP vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVIP Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVIP and RBIL, 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. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GVIP drawdown since its inception was -37.09%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GVIP and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GVIP	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.09%	-0.52%	-36.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.67%	-0.52%	-13.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.51%	+0.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.57%	-0.07%	-7.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	0.09%	+3.11%

Volatility

GVIP vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) has a higher volatility of 9.33% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that GVIP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GVIP	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.33%	0.36%	+8.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.71%	0.85%	+15.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	0.95%	+19.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.65%	1.07%	+20.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.79%	1.07%	+20.72%

GVIP vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GVIP has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

GVIP vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

GVIP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	0.27%	0.34%	0.29%	0.77%	0.02%	0.00%	0.12%	0.77%	0.44%	0.45%	0.08%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GVIP and RBIL in my portfolio?

GVIP and RBIL have a correlation of -0.22, 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 RBIL?

GVIP has higher volatility (9.33%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVIP dropped -37.09% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, GVIP or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, GVIP leads with 45.11% vs 3.95% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GVIP or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, GVIP has performed better with a 45.11% return vs 3.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GVIP or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for GVIP.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 0.27% for GVIP.

What is the main difference between GVIP and RBIL?

GVIP is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. GVIP tracks Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund VIP Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GVIP and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.18 vs 2.26), 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.