IBTF vs. GBIL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both Government Bonds funds - IBTF tracks the ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index while GBIL tracks the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IBTF returned 0.90%/yr vs 3.31%/yr for GBIL. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBTF charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.

Performance

IBTF vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

IBTF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.09%
• 1Y: 2.14%
• 3Y*: 3.66%
• 5Y*: 0.90%
• 10Y*: —

GBIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.89%
• 3Y*: 4.63%
• 5Y*: 3.31%
• 10Y*: —

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

IBTF vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	0.00%	3.81%	4.60%	4.12%	-6.39%	-2.31%	3.60%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.40%	4.12%	5.24%	4.91%	1.05%	-0.08%	0.40%

Correlation

The correlation between IBTF and GBIL 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 2020	0.28

The correlation between IBTF and GBIL shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (1 year) to 0.32 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IBTF vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBTF

IBTF Risk / Return Rank: 99
IBTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Omega Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Martin Ratio Rank: 99

GBIL

GBIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
GBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
GBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

IBTF vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). 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.

	IBTF	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	7.08	16.76	-9.69
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	20.07	102.35	-82.28
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	6.23	39.22	-32.99
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	64.70	195.38	-130.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	219.02	1,603.24	-1,384.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBTF vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBTF Sharpe Ratio is 7.08, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 16.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBTF and GBIL, 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

	IBTF	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.08	16.76	-9.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.39	5.77	-5.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.44	4.87	-4.42

Drawdowns

IBTF vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBTF drawdown since its inception was -10.45%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTF and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBTF	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.45%	-0.76%	-9.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.04%	-0.02%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.67%	-0.76%	+0.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.53%	-0.76%	-8.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.33%	-0.04%	-3.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	0.00%	+0.01%

Volatility

IBTF vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) is 0.00%, while Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) has a volatility of 0.04%. This indicates that IBTF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBTF	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	0.04%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.19%	0.14%	+0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36%	0.23%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.38%	0.58%	+1.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.56%	0.47%	+2.09%

IBTF vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBTF has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than GBIL's 0.12% 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

IBTF vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

IBTF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, less than GBIL's 3.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	3.74%	4.02%	4.93%	4.77%	1.37%	0.00%	0.81%	2.20%	1.70%	0.74%	0.11%
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	2.08%	3.83%	4.32%	4.03%	1.93%	0.57%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBTF and GBIL in my portfolio?

IBTF and GBIL 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, IBTF or GBIL?

GBIL has higher volatility (0.04%) compared to IBTF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBTF dropped -10.45% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, IBTF or GBIL?

On 5-year performance, GBIL leads with 3.31% vs 0.90% for IBTF. On fees, IBTF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBTF or GBIL?

Over the 5-year period, GBIL has performed better with a 3.31% return vs 0.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBTF or GBIL?

IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for GBIL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBTF or GBIL?

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 2.08% for IBTF.

What is the main difference between IBTF and GBIL?

IBTF tracks ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index, while GBIL tracks FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTF and 0.12% for GBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.76 vs 7.08), 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.