PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IAU vs. NYF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IAU vs. NYF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAU achieves a -2.51% return, which is significantly lower than NYF's 1.58% return. Over the past 10 years, IAU has outperformed NYF with an annualized return of 12.31%, while NYF has yielded a comparatively lower 1.76% annualized return.


IAU

1D
3.05%
1M
-10.80%
YTD
-2.51%
6M
-1.75%
1Y
25.36%
3Y*
28.71%
5Y*
17.22%
10Y*
12.31%

NYF

1D
0.17%
1M
0.63%
YTD
1.58%
6M
1.84%
1Y
6.63%
3Y*
3.28%
5Y*
0.76%
10Y*
1.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IAU vs. NYF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IAU
iShares Gold Trust
-2.51%63.95%26.85%12.84%-0.63%-4.00%25.03%17.98%-1.76%12.91%
NYF
iShares New York Muni Bond ETF
1.58%3.64%1.13%5.76%-7.75%1.34%4.18%6.49%0.66%5.02%

Correlation

The correlation between IAU and NYF is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.19

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.24

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2007

0.14

The correlation between IAU and NYF shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (all time) to 0.26 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

IAU vs. NYF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAU
IAU Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

NYF
NYF Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
NYF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NYF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
NYF Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
NYF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
NYF Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IAU vs. NYF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF). 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.


IAUNYFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.52

-0.33

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.04

2.41

-1.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.04

8.60

-5.56

IAU vs. NYF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is lower than the NYF Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAU and NYF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IAU vs. NYF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, which is greater than NYF's maximum drawdown of -13.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and NYF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IAUNYFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.14%

-13.12%

-32.02%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-24.40%

-2.76%

-21.64%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.40%

-5.68%

-18.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.40%

-12.71%

-11.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-24.40%

-13.12%

-11.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.09%

-0.50%

-21.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.97%

-2.31%

-13.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.36%

0.77%

+7.59%

Volatility

IAU vs. NYF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a higher volatility of 7.68% compared to iShares New York Muni Bond ETF (NYF) at 0.97%. This indicates that IAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NYF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IAUNYFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.68%

0.97%

+6.71%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.94%

2.10%

+21.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.17%

2.76%

+24.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.17%

4.00%

+14.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.02%

4.48%

+11.54%

IAU vs. NYF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IAU and NYF have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IAU vs. NYF - Dividend Comparison

IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while NYF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.09%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAU
iShares Gold Trust
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
NYF
iShares New York Muni Bond ETF
3.09%2.99%2.77%2.36%2.04%1.85%1.98%2.19%2.48%2.46%2.43%2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions


IAU and NYF have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IAU has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to NYF (0.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAU dropped -45.14% vs NYF's -13.12%.

On 10-year performance, IAU leads with 12.31% vs 1.76% for NYF. Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. On volatility, NYF has been the lower-risk option at 0.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IAU has performed better with a 12.31% return vs 1.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IAU and NYF have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.

NYF has the higher dividend yield at 3.09%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

IAU is categorized as Gold, while NYF is Municipal Bonds. IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price, while NYF tracks S&P New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index.

NYF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 0.94), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IAU and NYF

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