AFSC vs. PALL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while PALL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt). AFSC is actively managed, while PALL is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 34.76% vs 13.76% for PALL. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PALL.

Performance

AFSC vs. PALL - 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 Palladium Shares ETF (PALL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 24.40% return, which is significantly higher than PALL's -23.17% return.

AFSC

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 6.74%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 6M: 19.46%
• 1Y: 34.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PALL

• 1D: -2.40%
• 1M: -8.89%
• YTD: -23.17%
• 6M: -33.98%
• 1Y: 13.76%
• 3Y*: -1.99%
• 5Y*: -14.70%
• 10Y*: 7.79%

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

AFSC vs. PALL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	24.40%	2.33%
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	-23.17%	62.47%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSC and PALL is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.26

Return for Risk

AFSC vs. PALL — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 65
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

PALL

PALL Risk / Return Rank: 13
PALL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
PALL Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
PALL Omega Ratio Rank: 15
PALL Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
PALL Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. PALL - 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 Palladium Shares ETF (PALL). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AFSC	PALL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.84	0.27	+1.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.60	0.70	+1.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.09	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.40	0.34	+3.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.89	0.75	+12.14

AFSC vs. PALL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is higher than the PALL Sharpe Ratio of 0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSC and PALL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AFSC vs. PALL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.93%, smaller than the maximum PALL drawdown of -73.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and PALL.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSC	PALL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.93%	-73.63%	+51.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.29%	-40.70%	+30.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-40.70%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-73.63%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-73.63%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.29%	-62.14%	+60.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-26.91%	+22.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.70%	18.39%	-15.69%

Volatility

AFSC vs. PALL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) is 5.46%, while Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) has a volatility of 12.76%. This indicates that AFSC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PALL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFSC	PALL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	12.76%	-7.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.59%	42.39%	-27.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.01%	51.04%	-32.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.51%	42.41%	-19.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.51%	38.03%	-15.52%

AFSC vs. PALL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

AFSC vs. PALL - Dividend Comparison

AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, while PALL has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSC and PALL in my portfolio?

AFSC and PALL have a correlation of 0.29, 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 PALL?

PALL has higher volatility (12.76%) compared to AFSC (5.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.93% vs PALL's -73.63%.

Which ETF is better, AFSC or PALL?

On 1-year performance, AFSC leads with 34.76% vs 13.76% for PALL. On fees, PALL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSC or PALL?

Over the 1-year period, AFSC has performed better with a 34.76% return vs 13.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSC or PALL?

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

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

AFSC has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for PALL.

What is the main difference between AFSC and PALL?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.27), 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.