AAAU vs. FCSSX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) and FCSSX (Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy Fund) are both funds - AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while FCSSX is a Commodities fund managed by Fidelity. Over the past 5 years, AAAU returned 18.60%/yr vs 10.92%/yr for FCSSX. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AAAU charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.00%/yr for FCSSX.

Performance

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy Fund (FCSSX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAAU achieves a 3.83% return, which is significantly lower than FCSSX's 20.94% return.

AAAU

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -1.63%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 6M: 6.34%
• 1Y: 32.55%
• 3Y*: 31.47%
• 5Y*: 18.60%
• 10Y*: —

FCSSX

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -1.35%
• YTD: 20.94%
• 6M: 20.67%
• 1Y: 32.35%
• 3Y*: 14.40%
• 5Y*: 10.92%
• 10Y*: 6.52%

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

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	3.83%	64.06%	26.91%	12.96%	-0.50%	-4.01%	25.02%	18.17%	9.20%
FCSSX Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy Fund	20.94%	15.43%	5.36%	-8.25%	18.11%	27.59%	-3.11%	7.41%	-6.79%

Correlation

The correlation between AAAU and FCSSX is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018	0.37

The correlation between AAAU and FCSSX shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (all time) to 0.49 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

AAAU vs. FCSSX — Risk / Return Rank

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

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 34
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 39
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 30

FCSSX

FCSSX Risk / Return Rank: 63
FCSSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FCSSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
FCSSX Omega Ratio Rank: 56
FCSSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FCSSX Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy Fund (FCSSX). 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.

	AAAU	FCSSX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	2.31	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	2.96	-1.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.41	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	4.53	-2.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.21	11.82	-7.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAAU Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the FCSSX Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAAU and FCSSX, 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

	AAAU	FCSSX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.24	2.31	-1.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	0.69	+0.36
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.09	0.10	+0.99

Drawdowns

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAAU drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, smaller than the maximum FCSSX drawdown of -66.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAAU and FCSSX.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAAU	FCSSX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.63%	-66.04%	+44.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.13%	-7.21%	-11.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.13%	-11.43%	-7.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.94%	-24.07%	+3.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.97%	-9.51%	-7.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.19%	-36.19%	+30.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.76%	2.75%	+5.01%

Volatility

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a higher volatility of 5.51% compared to Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy Fund (FCSSX) at 4.34%. This indicates that AAAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCSSX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAAU	FCSSX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.51%	4.34%	+1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.94%	11.74%	+11.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.33%	14.12%	+12.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.83%	15.96%	+1.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.99%	14.34%	+2.65%

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAAU has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than FCSSX's 0.00% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

AAAU vs. FCSSX - Dividend Comparison

AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FCSSX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.23%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FCSSX Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy Fund	2.23%	2.69%	12.74%	4.53%	128.24%	41.74%	0.44%	1.49%	6.76%	0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAAU and FCSSX in my portfolio?

AAAU and FCSSX have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAAU or FCSSX?

AAAU has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to FCSSX (4.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAAU dropped -21.63% vs FCSSX's -66.04%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FCSSX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.31 vs 1.24), 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.