Yatırımcı.AI

GTA vs NHA Fund Comparison

Price, period returns, size, investor count and risk score of GTA (Garanti Portföy Altın Fonu) and NHA (Zurıch Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) side by side.

GTANHA
StockFund

If you had invested TRY 10,000

Metric comparison

GTA vs NHA Fund Comparison
MetricGTANHACategory median
Daily0.51%0.62%0.49%
1 week−1.72%−1.61%−1.65%
1 month−5.37%−5.34%−5.35%
3 months10.46%10.36%10.41%
6 months2.50%2.02%2.13%
YTD8.30%7.86%8.20%
1 year27.63%29.53%27.66%
3 years256.76%298.93%287.47%
Returns are based on prices as of September 28, 2026; the fund with the higher return or the lower risk score counts as the leader.

Popular comparisons

Related pages

About the GTA vs NHA comparison

The price, returns, size and risk of GTA (Garanti Portföy Altın Fonu) and NHA (Zurıch Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) are compared side by side as of September 28, 2026. Of the 10 metrics compared, GTA leads in 4 and NHA leads in 6. GTA is a Gold Fund fund managed by Garanti Portföy Yönetimi A.Ş.; NHA is a Gold Fund fund managed by Nn Hayat ve Emeklilik A.Ş..

Highlights: Daily: NHA leads (0.62% vs 0.51%). 1 week: NHA leads (−1.61% vs −1.72%). 1 month: NHA leads (−5.34% vs −5.37%). 3 months: GTA leads (10.46% vs 10.36%). 6 months: GTA leads (2.50% vs 2.02%). YTD: GTA leads (8.30% vs 7.86%). 1 year: NHA leads (29.53% vs 27.63%). 3 years: NHA leads (298.93% vs 256.76%). Size (TRY): GTA leads (24B vs 22.5B). Investors: NHA leads (119,740 vs 73,616).

Frequently asked questions

Year to date GTA returned 8.30% and NHA returned 7.86%; over the last year GTA returned 27.63% and NHA returned 29.53%. Over the last month GTA returned −5.37% and NHA returned −5.34%. Past performance does not indicate future returns.

As of September 28, 2026, GTA has a size of TRY 24B with 73,616 investors, while NHA has a size of TRY 22.5B with 119,740 investors. GTA leads in size and NHA leads in investor count.

The CMB risk score of GTA is 6 out of 7 and that of NHA is 6. The risk score reflects the historical volatility of the fund price; 1 is the lowest and 7 the highest risk. A lower score means less volatility, not a guarantee of higher returns.