PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IBTM vs. GCOR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IBTM vs. GCOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) and Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBTM achieves a -0.90% return, which is significantly lower than GCOR's -0.64% return.


IBTM

1D
-0.20%
1M
-0.86%
6M
-0.82%
YTD
-0.90%
1Y
1.00%
3Y*
3.23%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
1.24%

GCOR

1D
-0.32%
1M
-1.23%
6M
-0.88%
YTD
-0.64%
1Y
1.85%
3Y*
3.64%
5Y*
-0.72%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
-0.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$2.82M$2.72M$3.17M
$2.40M$2.20M$2.73M

IBTM vs. GCOR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
IBTM
iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF
-0.90%8.06%-0.14%3.48%-5.01%
GCOR
Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
-0.64%7.22%0.51%5.79%-3.85%

Correlation

The correlation between IBTM and GCOR is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.94

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2022

0.92

The correlation between IBTM and GCOR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

IBTM vs. GCOR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IBTM
IBTM Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
IBTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBTM Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
IBTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBTM Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank

GCOR
GCOR Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
GCOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GCOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
GCOR Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
GCOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
GCOR Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IBTM vs. GCOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) and Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR). 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.


IBTMGCORDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.09

1.13

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.66

0.95

-0.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.49

2.38

-0.89

IBTM vs. GCOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBTM Sharpe Ratio is 0.55, which is comparable to the GCOR Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBTM and GCOR, 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

IBTM vs. GCOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBTM drawdown since its inception was -13.60%, smaller than the maximum GCOR drawdown of -18.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTM and GCOR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IBTMGCORDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.60%

-18.94%

+5.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.26%

-2.82%

-0.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.33%

-5.09%

-1.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.63%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.78%

-4.29%

+1.51%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.72%

-7.86%

+3.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

1.12%

+0.32%

Volatility

IBTM vs. GCOR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) is 0.91%, while Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR) has a volatility of 1.02%. This indicates that IBTM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GCOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IBTMGCORDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.91%

1.02%

-0.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.98%

2.91%

+0.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.93%

3.62%

+0.31%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.45%

5.82%

+1.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.45%

5.48%

+1.97%

IBTM vs. GCOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBTM has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOR's 0.08% 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

IBTM vs. GCOR - Dividend Comparison

IBTM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.96%, less than GCOR's 4.23% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
GCOR
Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
3.88%4.03%4.36%3.67%2.11%0.92%0.24%
IBTM
iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF
3.62%3.87%3.96%3.39%1.38%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, IBTM and GCOR move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

GCOR has higher volatility (1.02%) compared to IBTM (0.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBTM dropped -13.60% vs GCOR's -18.94%.

On 3-year performance, GCOR leads with 3.64% vs 3.23% for IBTM. On fees, IBTM is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTM has been the lower-risk option at 0.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, GCOR has performed better with a 3.64% return vs 3.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBTM is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.08% for GCOR.

GCOR has the higher dividend yield at 3.88%, compared with 3.62% for IBTM.

IBTM tracks ICE 2032 Maturity US Treasury Index, while GCOR tracks FTSE Goldman Sachs US Broad Bond Market Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTM and 0.08% for GCOR.

GCOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.74 vs 0.55), 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 IBTM and GCOR

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