Data as of Nov 4, 2026.
GSLC vs LCTU: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, GSLC returned +13.3% to LCTU's +12.8%; 62% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about GSLC and LCTU
Net assets on Nov 3, 2026: $15.3bn for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF and $1.2bn for iShares U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF.
Pair scorecard
GSLC costs 0.06 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 0.5 points; GSLC is 12.8 times larger.
| Measure | GSLC | LCTU |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +13.3% | +12.8% |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity Index | No index, actively managed |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.15% |
| Net assets, as of Nov 3, 2026 | $15.3bn | $1.2bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 62% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 35.2% | 33.7% |
Risk and return
Apr 16, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026 · 289 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: GSLC against VOO, Oct 2, 2015 to Oct 30, 2026; LCTU against IWB, Apr 16, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026.
From Apr 2021 to Oct 2026, GSLC and LCTU returned about the same: +85.4% and +83.7%. GSLC swung slightly less: 15.5% to 15.9%. GSLC fell slightly less at its worst: −24.5% to −25.2%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | GSLC | LCTU | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +85.4% | +83.7% | Tie | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +11.7% | +11.6% | Tie | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +72.8% | +68.7% | GSLC (slight) | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 15.5% | 15.9% | GSLC (slight) | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 10.4% | 10.7% | GSLC (slight) | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −24.5% | −25.2% | GSLC (slight) | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 96.6% | 100.0% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 99.3% | 100.5% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 0.99 | 1.00 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.99 | 0.99 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.56 | 0.54 | GSLC (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.84 | 0.81 | GSLC (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.123 | 0.087 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.48 | 0.46 | GSLC (slight) | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VOO | IWB | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.7% a year | −0.3% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −1.43 | −0.68 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −1.7% to +0.3% | −1.3% to +0.6% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.49 | −0.30 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 1.6% | 1.2% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 289 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, GSLC and LCTU hold 62% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Aug 31, 2026 and Nov 3, 2026.
half
62% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
GSLC and LCTU on the fields both publish, as of Nov 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
Client brief:
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
GSLC
GSLC tracks an index. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026 it returned +13.3% with distributions reinvested, against +14.8% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for Aug 31, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 426 positions, with the top ten at 35.2%.
Over the year to Nov 4, 2026 it returned +12.8% with distributions reinvested, against +14.5% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index.
LCTU is actively managed and tracks no index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Nov 3, 2026, 93% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 321 positions, with the top ten at 33.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, GSLC or LCTU?
- In the year to Nov 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GSLC returned +13.3% and LCTU +12.8%.
- Which is cheaper, GSLC or LCTU?
- GSLC is cheaper, by 0.06 percentage points a year. That is about $6 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, GSLC against LCTU, data as of Nov 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gslc-vs-lctu
ETFIQ. (Nov 4, 2026). GSLC against LCTU. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gslc-vs-lctu
[GSLC against LCTU (ETFIQ, Nov 4, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gslc-vs-lctu)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.