MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MOAT.L (VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF) and GFGB.L (VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MOAT.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while GFGB.L is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the ICE BofA Gbl HY Constnd TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MOAT.L returned 3.18%/yr vs 3.21%/yr for GFGB.L. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MOAT.L charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GFGB.L.

Performance

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF (MOAT.L) and VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

MOAT.L is traded in USD, while GFGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the GFGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MOAT.L achieves a -2.67% return, which is significantly lower than GFGB.L's 3.54% return.

MOAT.L

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: -2.67%
• 6M: -3.13%
• 1Y: 8.27%
• 3Y*: 8.16%
• 5Y*: 3.18%
• 10Y*: 10.55%

GFGB.L

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 0.87%
• YTD: 3.54%
• 6M: 4.40%
• 1Y: 8.87%
• 3Y*: 9.33%
• 5Y*: 3.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MOAT.L VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF	-2.67%	7.34%	11.12%	18.37%	-18.70%	25.53%	13.62%	33.80%	1.33%
GFGB.L VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF	3.55%	10.14%	6.07%	9.77%	-12.76%	2.37%	16.54%	14.18%	-3.76%

Correlation

The correlation between MOAT.L and GFGB.L is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2018	0.38

The correlation between MOAT.L and GFGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.22 (1 year) to 0.42 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

MOAT.L

MOAT.L Risk / Return Rank: 19
MOAT.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
MOAT.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
MOAT.L Omega Ratio Rank: 18
MOAT.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
MOAT.L Martin Ratio Rank: 18

GFGB.L

GFGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 49
GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
GFGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GFGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 45
GFGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
GFGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF (MOAT.L) and VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.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.

	MOAT.L	GFGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.61	1.27	-0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	1.73	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.25	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.70	2.26	-1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.89	7.35	-5.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOAT.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.61, which is lower than the GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOAT.L and GFGB.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MOAT.L	GFGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61	1.27	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19	0.38	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.62	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.66	0.57	+0.09

Drawdowns

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOAT.L drawdown since its inception was -32.78%, which is greater than GFGB.L's maximum drawdown of -24.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOAT.L and GFGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	MOAT.L	GFGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.78%	-24.28%	-8.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.86%	-3.91%	-7.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.84%	-5.31%	-16.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.06%	-23.12%	-3.94%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.02%	-1.20%	-3.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.58%	-4.45%	-1.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.42%	1.20%	+3.22%

Volatility

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF (MOAT.L) and VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) have volatilities of 3.79% and 3.71%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MOAT.L	GFGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.79%	3.71%	+0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.62%	5.96%	+3.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.79%	6.94%	+6.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.32%	8.54%	+7.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.93%	9.20%	+7.73%

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

MOAT.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than GFGB.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

MOAT.L vs. GFGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither MOAT.L nor GFGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MOAT.L and GFGB.L in my portfolio?

MOAT.L and GFGB.L have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MOAT.L or GFGB.L?

On fees, GFGB.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MOAT.L or GFGB.L?

GFGB.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MOAT.L.

What is the main difference between MOAT.L and GFGB.L?

MOAT.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while GFGB.L is High Yield Bonds. MOAT.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while GFGB.L tracks ICE BofA Gbl HY Constnd TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MOAT.L and 0.40% for GFGB.L.