RGLO vs. GBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RGLO (Russell Investments Global Equity ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RGLO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Russell, while GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. RGLO is actively managed, while GBIL is passively managed. Over the past year, RGLO returned 28.28% vs 3.91% for GBIL. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. RGLO charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.

Performance

RGLO vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) and Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RGLO achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly higher than GBIL's 1.42% return.

RGLO

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 4.54%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 6M: 11.57%
• 1Y: 28.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GBIL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.91%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

RGLO vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RGLO Russell Investments Global Equity ETF	10.04%	17.37%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.42%	2.47%

Correlation

The correlation between RGLO and GBIL is -0.01, 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	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2025	-0.01

Return for Risk

RGLO vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RGLO

RGLO Risk / Return Rank: 68
RGLO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
RGLO Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RGLO Omega Ratio Rank: 68
RGLO Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
RGLO Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

RGLO vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) 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.

	RGLO	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	16.89	-14.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	102.89	-99.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	39.42	-38.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	196.43	-193.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.33	1,608.66	-1,595.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RGLO vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RGLO Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 16.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGLO 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

	RGLO	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	16.89	-14.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.29	4.87	-2.58

Drawdowns

RGLO vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGLO drawdown since its inception was -9.61%, which is greater than GBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGLO and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGLO	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.61%	-0.76%	-8.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-0.02%	-9.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.76%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	0.00%	-1.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.16%	-0.04%	-1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.13%	0.00%	+2.13%

Volatility

RGLO vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) has a higher volatility of 3.65% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.04%. This indicates that RGLO'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.

Volatility by Period

	RGLO	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	0.04%	+3.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.90%	0.14%	+9.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.72%	0.23%	+12.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.69%	0.58%	+12.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.69%	0.47%	+12.22%

RGLO vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RGLO has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than GBIL's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

RGLO vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

RGLO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, 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%
RGLO Russell Investments Global Equity ETF	0.58%	0.63%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RGLO and GBIL in my portfolio?

RGLO and GBIL have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RGLO or GBIL?

RGLO has higher volatility (3.65%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RGLO dropped -9.61% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, RGLO or GBIL?

On 1-year performance, RGLO leads with 28.28% vs 3.91% for GBIL. On fees, GBIL is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RGLO or GBIL?

Over the 1-year period, RGLO has performed better with a 28.28% return vs 3.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RGLO or GBIL?

GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for RGLO.

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

GBIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.58% for RGLO.

What is the main difference between RGLO and GBIL?

RGLO is categorized as Global Equities, while GBIL is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Russell and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for RGLO and 0.12% for GBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 vs 2.23), 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.