AFSC vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. AFSC is actively managed, while GLTR is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 28.96% vs 53.06% for GLTR. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

AFSC vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 17.39% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's 1.47% return.

AFSC

• 1D: 0.86%
• 1M: 1.65%
• YTD: 17.39%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 28.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLTR

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: 1.47%
• 6M: 10.73%
• 1Y: 53.06%
• 3Y*: 32.36%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: 13.17%

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

AFSC vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	17.39%	2.67%
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	1.47%	67.23%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSC and GLTR is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.12

Return for Risk

AFSC vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 48
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 40
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 36
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

AFSC vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). 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.

	AFSC	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.42	+0.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	1.73	+0.51
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.29	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.76	1.80	+0.97
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.46	4.13	+6.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFSC vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSC and GLTR, 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

	AFSC	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	1.42	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.65	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.64	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	0.32	+0.37

Drawdowns

AFSC vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.68%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSC	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.68%	-55.70%	+34.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.29%	-29.70%	+19.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.70%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.70%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-29.70%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	-26.86%	+25.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.16%	-28.83%	+24.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	12.88%	-10.16%

Volatility

AFSC vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) is 5.55%, while Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 9.13%. This indicates that AFSC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFSC	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.55%	9.13%	-3.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	35.41%	-21.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.58%	37.58%	-19.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.60%	23.63%	-1.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.60%	20.50%	+2.10%

AFSC vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFSC vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.07%	0.08%
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSC and GLTR in my portfolio?

AFSC and GLTR have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFSC or GLTR?

GLTR has higher volatility (9.13%) compared to AFSC (5.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.68% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, AFSC or GLTR?

On 1-year performance, GLTR leads with 53.06% vs 28.96% for AFSC. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSC or GLTR?

Over the 1-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 53.06% return vs 28.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSC or GLTR?

GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFSC or GLTR?

AFSC has the higher dividend yield at 0.07%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between AFSC and GLTR?

AFSC is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while GLTR is Precious Metals. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.42), 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.