IB01.L vs. CBND.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

IB01.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc)) and CBND.L (Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both Government Bonds funds - IB01.L tracks the ICE U.S. Treasury Short Bond Index while CBND.L tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IB01.L returned 3.29%/yr vs 2.85%/yr for CBND.L. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IB01.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for CBND.L.

Performance

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IB01.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IB01.L achieves a 1.83% return, which is significantly lower than CBND.L's 4.87% return.

IB01.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• 6M: 1.77%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: —

CBND.L

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.02%
• 6M: 4.64%
• YTD: 4.87%
• 1Y: 7.44%
• 3Y*: 5.57%
• 5Y*: 2.85%
• 10Y*: —

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

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IB01.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc)	1.83%	4.34%	5.25%	4.92%	1.08%	-0.85%	0.88%	0.34%
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	4.87%	5.04%	4.67%	1.28%	-5.17%	7.61%	8.70%	3.08%

Correlation

The correlation between IB01.L and CBND.L is 0.02, 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	0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2019	0.06

Return for Risk

IB01.L vs. CBND.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

IB01.L

IB01.L Risk / Return Rank: 100
IB01.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
IB01.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
IB01.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
IB01.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IB01.L Martin Ratio Rank: 100

CBND.L

CBND.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
CBND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
CBND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CBND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CBND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IB01.L) and Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L). 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.

	IB01.L	CBND.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	11.93	2.39	+9.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	37.36	3.57	+33.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	8.35	1.47	+6.88
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	114.58	7.45	+107.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	560.87	18.48	+542.39

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IB01.L Sharpe Ratio is 11.93, which is higher than the CBND.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IB01.L and CBND.L, 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

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IB01.L drawdown since its inception was -1.28%, smaller than the maximum CBND.L drawdown of -11.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IB01.L and CBND.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	IB01.L	CBND.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-11.48%	+10.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.03%	-0.99%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.09%	-3.66%	+3.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-1.12%	-11.48%	+10.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.21%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.23%	-2.80%	+2.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	0.40%	-0.39%

Volatility

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IB01.L) is 0.08%, while Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (CBND.L) has a volatility of 0.89%. This indicates that IB01.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CBND.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IB01.L	CBND.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.08%	0.89%	-0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.22%	2.58%	-2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33%	3.11%	-2.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.54%	5.02%	-4.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.78%	4.94%	-4.16%

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IB01.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than CBND.L's 0.24% 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

IB01.L vs. CBND.L - Dividend Comparison

IB01.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBND.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CBND.L Goldman Sachs Access China Government Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.04%	2.20%	2.45%	2.54%	2.72%	2.52%	1.87%
IB01.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 0-1yr UCITS ETF (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IB01.L and CBND.L in my portfolio?

IB01.L and CBND.L have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IB01.L or CBND.L?

On fees, IB01.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IB01.L or CBND.L?

IB01.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for CBND.L.

What is the main difference between IB01.L and CBND.L?

IB01.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury Short Bond Index, while CBND.L tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs China Government Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IB01.L and 0.24% for CBND.L.