GIGB ranks 4th and SUSC 12th of 49 funds in the Investment Grade Corporate Category.
GIGB vs SUSC
GIGB −0.10pt a year
0.08%0.18%
SUSC 2.9×the volume
83.7K247K
GIGB +0.1pt
−0.2%−0.3%
GIGB vs SUSC Performance
−0.8%−1.4%
- GIGB 0.08%, better
- SUSC 0.18%
- GIGB $1.04B
- SUSC $1.31B
- GIGB −0.5%, better
- SUSC −0.7%
- GIGB 4.77%, better
- SUSC 4.70%
- GIGB 2719
- SUSC 3946
- GIGB 83.7K sh
- SUSC 247K sh, better
- GIGB $44.25
- SUSC $22.35
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | GIGB | SUSC |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A94Higher | A70 |
| Mission | A100 | A100 |
| Risk | C54Higher | D28 |
| Tradability | C45 | B64Higher |
| Holdings | A87 | A90Higher |
| Durability | A74 | A77Higher |
Rank among Investment Grade Corporate funds
Same Category. GIGB and SUSC are both graded against the same 49 Investment Grade Corporate funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
GIGBA
SUSCA
In short
GIGB Most investment-grade corporate bond funds just buy the biggest borrowers. Goldman's index screens the market on liquidity and fundamentals first, then spreads the money across roughly 1,600 bonds for 0.08% a year.
SUSC Corporate bond beta with a conscience filter: roughly 4,000 investment-grade USD bonds, screened on business involvement and tilted toward better ESG profiles, in one ticker. Trading since 2017, paying monthly.
Stated mandate
GIGB The Fund seeks to track the FTSE Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index, which measures U.S.-dollar-denominated investment-grade corporate bonds meeting liquidity and fundamental screening criteria.
SUSC The fund seeks to track an index of investment-grade USD corporate bonds with positive environmental, social, and governance characteristics in aggregate.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
GIGB vs SUSC Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
GIGB vs SUSC Cost
Overpaying SUSC vs GIGB
$2,060
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
GIGB 0.08%
$1,689
SUSC 0.18%
$3,749
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | GIGB | SUSC | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $147 | $328 | $181 |
| 20 | $575 | $1,281 | $706 |
| 30 | $1,689 | $3,749 | $2,060 |
- 0.08%GIGB, cheaper
- 0.18%SUSC
- Middle half of Investment Grade Corporate funds
- Median 0.25%
GIGB 4th cheapest of 49 funds
SUSC 14th cheapest of 49 funds
GIGB vs SUSC Dividends
- GIGB 4.77%, better
- SUSC 4.70%
- GIGB $2.12
- SUSC $1.05
- GIGB $0.18
- SUSC $0.09
- GIGB Oct 1, 2026
- SUSC Oct 1, 2026
- GIGB Oct 7, 2026
- SUSC Oct 6, 2026
- GIGB Monthly
- SUSC Monthly
Distribution history
GIGB vs SUSC Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- GIGB
- SUSC
Risk facts
- Volatility
- GIGB 6.5%SUSC 6.3%, better
- Return per unit of risk
- GIGB 0.30, betterSUSC 0.29
- Worst fall
- GIGB −21.9%, betterSUSC −22.0%
- Market sensitivity
- GIGB 1.04SUSC 1.11
Popular comparisons
- 0.08% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.18% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.08% · 0.03%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.18% · 0.03%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.08% · 0.03%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.18% · 0.03%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.