PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IEMG vs. GBIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IEMG vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IEMG achieves a 15.55% return, which is significantly higher than GBIL's 1.90% return.


IEMG

1D
-1.78%
1M
-6.23%
6M
7.28%
YTD
15.55%
1Y
28.48%
3Y*
17.89%
5Y*
6.77%
10Y*
8.78%
ALL TIME*
6.06%

GBIL

1D
0.03%
1M
0.29%
6M
1.70%
YTD
1.90%
1Y
3.77%
3Y*
4.57%
5Y*
3.42%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
2.30%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$51.18M$55.98M$72.80M
$959.90M$1.12B$1.07B

IEMG vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
15.55%32.56%6.50%11.52%-19.98%-0.64%17.87%17.81%-14.92%37.38%
GBIL
Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF
1.90%4.12%5.24%4.91%1.05%-0.08%0.79%2.31%1.78%0.69%

Correlation

The correlation between IEMG and GBIL is 0.02, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.


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

0.02

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

0.03

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 8, 2016

-0.01

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

IEMG vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

GBIL
GBIL Risk / Return Rank: 100100
Overall Rank
GBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100100
Sortino Ratio Rank
GBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100100
Omega Ratio Rank
GBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100100
Calmar Ratio Rank
GBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100100
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.

IEMG vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) 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.

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.


IEMGGBILDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-15.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-140.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

75.95

-74.71

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.13

191.66

-189.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.72

2,147.30

-2,140.58

IEMG vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEMG Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 17.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEMG 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IEMG vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEMG drawdown since its inception was -38.71%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEMG and GBIL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IEMGGBILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.71%

-0.76%

-37.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.21%

-0.02%

-13.19%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.21%

-0.76%

-16.45%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.61%

-0.76%

-32.85%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.41%

0.00%

-10.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.90%

-0.04%

-12.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.19%

0.00%

+4.19%

Volatility

IEMG vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a higher volatility of 7.86% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.06%. This indicates that IEMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IEMGGBILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.86%

0.06%

+7.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.27%

0.14%

+21.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.23%

0.23%

+23.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.21%

0.58%

+18.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.26%

0.47%

+19.79%

IEMG vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IEMG has a 0.09% 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

IEMG vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

IEMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.33%, less than GBIL's 3.71% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GBIL
Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF
3.71%4.02%4.93%4.77%1.37%0.00%0.81%2.20%1.70%0.74%0.11%0.00%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
2.33%2.75%3.20%2.89%2.71%3.06%1.87%3.15%2.76%2.35%2.28%2.53%

Frequently Asked Questions


IEMG and GBIL 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.

IEMG has higher volatility (7.86%) compared to GBIL (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IEMG dropped -38.71% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

On 5-year performance, IEMG leads with 6.77% vs 3.42% for GBIL. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IEMG has performed better with a 6.77% return vs 3.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for GBIL.

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.71%, compared with 2.33% for IEMG.

IEMG is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while GBIL is Government Bonds. IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net), 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: 0.09% for IEMG and 0.12% for GBIL.

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (17.10 vs 1.21), 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 IEMG and GBIL

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