IBTM vs. GCOR
IBTM (iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF) and GCOR (Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds - IBTM tracks the ICE 2032 Maturity US Treasury Index while GCOR tracks the FTSE Goldman Sachs US Broad Bond Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBTM returned 2.78%/yr vs 3.50%/yr for GCOR. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IBTM charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for GCOR.
Performance
IBTM vs. GCOR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBTM achieves a -0.79% return, which is significantly lower than GCOR's -0.22% return.
IBTM
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- -0.44%
- 6M
- -0.79%
- YTD
- -0.79%
- 1Y
- 2.79%
- 3Y*
- 2.78%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GCOR
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- -0.71%
- 6M
- -0.45%
- YTD
- -0.22%
- 1Y
- 3.62%
- 3Y*
- 3.50%
- 5Y*
- -0.50%
- 10Y*
- —
IBTM vs. GCOR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF | -0.79% | 8.06% | -0.14% | 3.48% | -5.01% |
GCOR Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | -0.22% | 7.22% | 0.51% | 5.79% | -3.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTM and GCOR is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 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
IBTM
GCOR
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.
| IBTM | GCOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.31 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 1.18 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.86 | 1.29 | -0.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.14 | 3.57 | -1.42 |
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
| IBTM | GCOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 | -7.86% | -6.09% | -1.77% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.63% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.67% | -3.88% | +1.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.75% | -7.90% | +3.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.31% | 1.02% | +0.29% |
Volatility
IBTM vs. GCOR - Volatility Comparison
iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) has a higher volatility of 1.36% compared to Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (GCOR) at 1.22%. This indicates that IBTM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GCOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBTM | GCOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.36% | 1.22% | +0.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.96% | 2.86% | +0.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.01% | 3.61% | +0.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.49% | 5.82% | +1.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.49% | 5.50% | +1.99% |
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 4.22% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCOR Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | 4.22% | 4.03% | 4.36% | 3.67% | 2.11% | 0.92% | 0.24% |
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF | 3.96% | 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.
IBTM has higher volatility (1.36%) compared to GCOR (1.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBTM dropped -13.60% vs GCOR's -18.94%.
On 3-year performance, GCOR leads with 3.50% vs 2.78% for IBTM. On fees, IBTM is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, GCOR has been the lower-risk option at 1.22%. 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 3.50% return vs 2.78%. 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 4.22%, compared with 3.96% 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 (1.01 vs 0.70), 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.
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