UYLD vs. GBIL

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

UYLD (Angel Oak Ultrashort Income ETF) and GBIL (Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UYLD is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Angel Oak, while GBIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the FTSE US Treasury 0-1 Year Composite Select Index. UYLD is actively managed, while GBIL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UYLD returned 5.92%/yr vs 4.64%/yr for GBIL. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UYLD charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GBIL.

Performance

UYLD vs. GBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Angel Oak Ultrashort Income ETF (UYLD) 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, UYLD achieves a 1.95% return, which is significantly higher than GBIL's 1.44% return.

UYLD

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.67%
• YTD: 1.95%
• 6M: 2.40%
• 1Y: 5.14%
• 3Y*: 5.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GBIL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 1.44%
• 6M: 1.75%
• 1Y: 3.89%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

UYLD vs. GBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UYLD Angel Oak Ultrashort Income ETF	1.95%	5.36%	6.10%	6.90%	1.12%
GBIL Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF	1.44%	4.12%	5.24%	4.91%	0.76%

Correlation

The correlation between UYLD and GBIL is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 26, 2022	0.25

Return for Risk

UYLD vs. GBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

UYLD

UYLD Risk / Return Rank: 99
UYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
UYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
UYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 99
UYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
UYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

UYLD vs. GBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Angel Oak Ultrashort Income ETF (UYLD) 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.

	UYLD	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	7.96	16.89	-8.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	21.74	102.35	-80.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	4.32	39.22	-34.90
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	37.76	195.39	-157.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	225.62	1,656.50	-1,430.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UYLD vs. GBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UYLD Sharpe Ratio is 7.96, which is lower than the GBIL Sharpe Ratio of 16.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UYLD 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

	UYLD	GBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.96	16.89	-8.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	5.99	4.88	+1.11

Drawdowns

UYLD vs. GBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UYLD drawdown since its inception was -0.54%, smaller than the maximum GBIL drawdown of -0.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UYLD and GBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	UYLD	GBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.54%	-0.76%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.14%	-0.02%	-0.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.54%	-0.76%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.03%	-0.04%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.02%	0.00%	+0.02%

Volatility

UYLD vs. GBIL - Volatility Comparison

Angel Oak Ultrashort Income ETF (UYLD) has a higher volatility of 0.38% compared to Goldman Sachs Access Treasury 0-1 Year ETF (GBIL) at 0.04%. This indicates that UYLD'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

	UYLD	GBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.38%	0.04%	+0.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.50%	0.14%	+0.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65%	0.23%	+0.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.00%	0.58%	+0.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.00%	0.47%	+0.53%

UYLD vs. GBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

UYLD has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than GBIL's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

UYLD vs. GBIL - Dividend Comparison

UYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.03%, more 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%
UYLD Angel Oak Ultrashort Income ETF	5.03%	5.07%	4.97%	5.92%	0.75%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UYLD and GBIL in my portfolio?

UYLD and GBIL have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UYLD or GBIL?

UYLD has higher volatility (0.38%) compared to GBIL (0.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UYLD dropped -0.54% vs GBIL's -0.76%.

Which ETF is better, UYLD or GBIL?

On 3-year performance, UYLD leads with 5.92% vs 4.64% 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, UYLD or GBIL?

Over the 3-year period, UYLD has performed better with a 5.92% return vs 4.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UYLD or GBIL?

GBIL is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for UYLD.

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

UYLD has the higher dividend yield at 5.03%, compared with 3.74% for GBIL.

What is the main difference between UYLD and GBIL?

UYLD is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while GBIL is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Angel Oak and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for UYLD and 0.12% for GBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.89 vs 7.96), 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.