Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
GIGB vs QLTA: Differences, Returns & Fees
GIGB's duration was 6.5 years on Aug 31, 2026 and QLTA's 6.5 on Jul 31, 2026; GIGB charges 0.08% to QLTA's 0.15%.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about GIGB and QLTA
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $1.0bn for Goldman Sachs Access Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF and $1.2bn for iShares Aaa - A Rated Corporate Bond ETF.
Pair scorecard
GIGB costs 0.07 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 0.4 points; QLTA is 1.2 times larger.
| Measure | GIGB | QLTA |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | −1.9% | −2.3% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 5.2%, high on Aug 6, 2020 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index | Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.15% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $1.0bn | $1.2bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 28% | |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Aug 31, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Jun 16, 2017 to Oct 23, 2026 · 488 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: GIGB against AGG, Jun 16, 2017 to Oct 23, 2026; QLTA against IUSB, Jun 20, 2014 to Oct 23, 2026.
GIGB returned more: +22.0% to +17.3%. QLTA swung less: 8.0% to 9.3%. GIGB and QLTA fell about the same at their worst: −22.0% and −21.9%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | GIGB | QLTA | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +22.0% | +17.3% | GIGB | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +2.1% | +1.7% | GIGB | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | −11.8% | −13.1% | GIGB | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 9.3% | 8.0% | QLTA | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 6.6% | 5.6% | QLTA | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −22.0% | −21.9% | Tie | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 131.3% | 126.4% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 120.1% | 121.7% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.44 | 1.35 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.68 | 0.87 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | −0.01 | −0.08 | GIGB | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | −0.01 | −0.11 | GIGB | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | −0.001 | 0.003 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.10 | 0.08 | GIGB | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | AGG | IUSB | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | +1.5% a year | +0.3% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | 0.86 | 0.34 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −1.9% to +4.9% | −1.2% to +1.7% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | 0.17 | 0.09 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 5.8% | 3.1% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 488 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, GIGB and QLTA hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Aug 31, 2026.
half
28% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
GIGB and QLTA on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
GIGB and QLTA are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. GIGB follows FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index and QLTA follows Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Aaa - A Capped Index.
- Holdings in common. 28% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Aug 31, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026).
- One-year total return (similar). Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 GIGB returned −1.9% and QLTA −2.3% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 0.4 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
GIGB
GIGB tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned −1.9% with distributions reinvested, against −1.4% for its benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year.
QLTA
QLTA tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned −2.3% with distributions reinvested, against −1.2% for its benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Universal Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 5.2% below its high of Aug 6, 2020 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, GIGB or QLTA?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GIGB returned −1.9% and QLTA −2.3%.
- Which is cheaper, GIGB or QLTA?
- GIGB is cheaper, by 0.07 percentage points a year. That is about $7 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, GIGB against QLTA, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gigb-vs-qlta
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). GIGB against QLTA. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gigb-vs-qlta
[GIGB against QLTA (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gigb-vs-qlta)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.