RSJN vs. GSG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSJN (FT Vest U.S. Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - June) and GSG (iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - RSJN is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while GSG is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Total Return Index. RSJN is actively managed, while GSG is passively managed. Over the past year, RSJN returned 13.82% vs 51.52% for GSG. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. RSJN charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GSG.

Performance

RSJN vs. GSG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - June (RSJN) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSJN achieves a 6.92% return, which is significantly lower than GSG's 42.58% return.

RSJN

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 2.48%
• YTD: 6.92%
• 6M: 7.65%
• 1Y: 13.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSG

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: -4.83%
• YTD: 42.58%
• 6M: 41.06%
• 1Y: 51.52%
• 3Y*: 19.31%
• 5Y*: 15.74%
• 10Y*: 7.69%

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

RSJN vs. GSG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSJN FT Vest U.S. Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - June	6.92%	7.86%	5.05%
GSG iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust	42.58%	5.93%	-2.60%

Correlation

The correlation between RSJN and GSG is -0.18, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	-0.01

The correlation between RSJN and GSG shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RSJN vs. GSG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSJN

RSJN Risk / Return Rank: 64
RSJN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
RSJN Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
RSJN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
RSJN Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
RSJN Martin Ratio Rank: 72

GSG

GSG Risk / Return Rank: 71
GSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
GSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
GSG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
GSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
GSG Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

RSJN vs. GSG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - June (RSJN) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). 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.

	RSJN	GSG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	2.26	-0.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	2.88	-0.02
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.40	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.41	5.47	-2.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.31	14.39	-1.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSJN vs. GSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSJN Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the GSG Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSJN and GSG, 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

	RSJN	GSG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.94	2.26	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.03	-0.09	+1.12

Drawdowns

RSJN vs. GSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSJN drawdown since its inception was -12.44%, smaller than the maximum GSG drawdown of -89.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSJN and GSG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSJN	GSG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.44%	-89.62%	+77.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.07%	-9.46%	+5.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.94%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.12%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-57.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-56.95%	+56.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.58%	-63.71%	+62.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	3.59%	-2.55%

Volatility

RSJN vs. GSG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Equal Weight Buffer ETF - June (RSJN) is 1.17%, while iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG) has a volatility of 7.65%. This indicates that RSJN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSJN	GSG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.17%	7.65%	-6.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.89%	20.42%	-15.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.21%	22.95%	-15.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.15%	22.61%	-12.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.15%	22.03%	-11.88%

RSJN vs. GSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSJN has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GSG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSJN vs. GSG - Dividend Comparison

Neither RSJN nor GSG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSJN and GSG in my portfolio?

RSJN and GSG have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSJN or GSG?

GSG has higher volatility (7.65%) compared to RSJN (1.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSJN dropped -12.44% vs GSG's -89.62%.

Which ETF is better, RSJN or GSG?

On 1-year performance, GSG leads with 51.52% vs 13.82% for RSJN. On fees, GSG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, RSJN has been the lower-risk option at 1.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSJN or GSG?

Over the 1-year period, GSG has performed better with a 51.52% return vs 13.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSJN or GSG?

GSG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for RSJN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSJN or GSG?

RSJN and GSG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between RSJN and GSG?

RSJN is categorized as Defined Outcome, while GSG is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for RSJN and 0.75% for GSG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 1.94), 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.