BAR vs. FGDL

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

BAR (GraniteShares Gold Trust) and FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) are both Gold funds tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), from GraniteShares and Franklin Templeton respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BAR returned 27.69%/yr vs 27.81%/yr for FGDL. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. BAR charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FGDL.

Performance

BAR vs. FGDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BAR having a -6.75% return and FGDL slightly lower at -6.86%.

BAR

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: -10.75%
• YTD: -6.75%
• 6M: -10.24%
• 1Y: 20.46%
• 3Y*: 27.69%
• 5Y*: 17.51%
• 10Y*: —

FGDL

• 1D: 1.23%
• 1M: -10.34%
• YTD: -6.86%
• 6M: -10.30%
• 1Y: 20.40%
• 3Y*: 27.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAR vs. FGDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust	-6.75%	64.12%	26.97%	12.96%	0.17%
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	-6.86%	64.15%	27.31%	12.92%	0.72%

Correlation

The correlation between BAR and FGDL is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2022	0.98

The correlation between BAR and FGDL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BAR vs. FGDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAR

BAR Risk / Return Rank: 22
BAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
BAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
BAR Omega Ratio Rank: 25
BAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
BAR Martin Ratio Rank: 20

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 21
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

BAR vs. FGDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). 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.

	BAR	FGDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.75	0.73	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.09	1.07	+0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.16	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.79	0.77	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.19	2.15	+0.04

BAR vs. FGDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAR Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is comparable to the FGDL Sharpe Ratio of 0.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAR and FGDL, 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

BAR vs. FGDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAR drawdown since its inception was -26.15%, roughly equal to the maximum FGDL drawdown of -26.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAR and FGDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAR	FGDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.15%	-26.48%	+0.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.15%	-26.48%	+0.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.15%	-26.48%	+0.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.15%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.47%	-25.58%	+0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.55%	-4.12%	-2.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.35%	9.51%	-0.16%

Volatility

BAR vs. FGDL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) is 8.60%, while Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) has a volatility of 9.10%. This indicates that BAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FGDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAR	FGDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.60%	9.10%	-0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.32%	24.65%	-0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.52%	27.99%	-0.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.19%	19.39%	-1.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.56%	19.39%	-2.83%

BAR vs. FGDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAR has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is higher than FGDL's 0.15% 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

BAR vs. FGDL - Dividend Comparison

Neither BAR nor FGDL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAR and FGDL in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, BAR and FGDL move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BAR or FGDL?

FGDL has higher volatility (9.10%) compared to BAR (8.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAR dropped -26.15% vs FGDL's -26.48%.

Which ETF is better, BAR or FGDL?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 27.81% vs 27.69% for BAR. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BAR has been the lower-risk option at 8.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAR or FGDL?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 27.81% return vs 27.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAR or FGDL?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.17% for BAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAR or FGDL?

BAR and FGDL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BAR and FGDL?

Both ETFs track LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for BAR and 0.15% for FGDL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.75 vs 0.73), 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.