BABO vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BABO (YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BABO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by YieldMax, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. BABO is actively managed, while GLTR is passively managed. Over the past year, BABO returned -1.50% vs 38.86% for GLTR. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BABO charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

BABO vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) and abrdn 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, BABO achieves a -20.64% return, which is significantly lower than GLTR's -4.66% return.

BABO

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: -16.79%
• YTD: -20.64%
• 6M: -24.20%
• 1Y: -1.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLTR

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -13.34%
• YTD: -4.66%
• 6M: 0.76%
• 1Y: 38.86%
• 3Y*: 29.97%
• 5Y*: 14.04%
• 10Y*: 12.08%

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

BABO vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF	-20.64%	46.84%	0.65%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-4.66%	87.25%	8.65%

Correlation

The correlation between BABO and GLTR is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 8, 2024	0.19

Return for Risk

BABO vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BABO

BABO Risk / Return Rank: 8
BABO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
BABO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
BABO Omega Ratio Rank: 9
BABO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
BABO Martin Ratio Rank: 8

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 38
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

BABO vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) and abrdn 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.

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.

	BABO	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.12	1.04	-1.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.08	1.39	-1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.22	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.13	1.17	-1.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.28	2.88	-3.16

BABO vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BABO Sharpe Ratio is -0.12, which is lower than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BABO 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.

Drawdowns

BABO vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BABO drawdown since its inception was -33.33%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BABO and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BABO	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.33%	-55.70%	+22.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.33%	-34.09%	+0.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.09%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.09%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.33%	-31.27%	-2.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.90%	-28.82%	+14.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.34%	13.86%	+1.48%

Volatility

BABO vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) is 8.72%, while abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 10.43%. This indicates that BABO 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

	BABO	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.72%	10.43%	-1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.44%	36.24%	-11.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.33%	38.40%	-3.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.67%	23.87%	+12.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.67%	20.64%	+16.03%

BABO vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BABO has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BABO vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

BABO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 98.48%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF	98.48%	85.50%	20.65%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BABO and GLTR in my portfolio?

BABO and GLTR have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BABO or GLTR?

GLTR has higher volatility (10.43%) compared to BABO (8.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BABO dropped -33.33% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, BABO or GLTR?

On 1-year performance, GLTR leads with 38.86% vs -1.50% for BABO. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, BABO has been the lower-risk option at 8.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BABO or GLTR?

Over the 1-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 38.86% return vs -1.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BABO or GLTR?

GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for BABO.

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

BABO has the higher dividend yield at 98.48%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between BABO and GLTR?

BABO is categorized as Derivative Income, while GLTR is Precious Metals. They also come from different issuers: YieldMax and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for BABO and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs -0.12), 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.