CEF vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CEF (Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both funds - CEF is a Gold fund actively managed by Sprott, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. CEF is actively managed, while GLTR is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEF returned 12.06%/yr vs 11.62%/yr for GLTR. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CEF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

CEF vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) and abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CEF having a -6.55% return and GLTR slightly higher at -6.33%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CEF having a 12.06% annualized return and GLTR not far behind at 11.62%.

CEF

• 1D: -1.13%
• 1M: -9.57%
• YTD: -6.55%
• 6M: -7.24%
• 1Y: 40.93%
• 3Y*: 33.65%
• 5Y*: 18.01%
• 10Y*: 12.06%

GLTR

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: -9.55%
• YTD: -6.33%
• 6M: -7.48%
• 1Y: 38.38%
• 3Y*: 30.43%
• 5Y*: 15.09%
• 10Y*: 11.62%

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

CEF vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	-6.55%	92.76%	24.07%	6.80%	1.07%	-8.32%	31.99%	16.91%	-6.34%	18.78%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-6.33%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	29.52%	20.96%	-2.85%	12.94%

Correlation

The correlation between CEF and GLTR is 0.97 - 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	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2010	0.91

The correlation between CEF and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CEF vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEF

CEF Risk / Return Rank: 16
CEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
CEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
CEF Omega Ratio Rank: 20
CEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CEF Martin Ratio Rank: 13

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 26
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 33
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

CEF vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) 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.

	CEF	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	1.00	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.42	1.35	+0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.22	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	1.13	+0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.45	2.65	+0.80

CEF vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEF Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is comparable to the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEF 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

CEF vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEF drawdown since its inception was -62.29%, which is greater than GLTR's maximum drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEF and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEF	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.29%	-55.70%	-6.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.01%	-34.09%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.01%	-34.09%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.01%	-34.09%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.01%	-34.09%	+4.08%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.71%	-32.48%	+4.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.33%	-28.83%	+1.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.91%	14.52%	-2.61%

Volatility

CEF vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) has a higher volatility of 10.63% compared to abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) at 9.77%. This indicates that CEF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEF	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.63%	9.77%	+0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.30%	36.39%	-0.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.13%	38.72%	+0.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.57%	23.85%	+0.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.01%	20.69%	+1.32%

CEF vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEF vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEF nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.08%	0.07%	0.09%	0.10%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEF and GLTR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, CEF and GLTR 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, CEF or GLTR?

CEF has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to GLTR (9.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEF dropped -62.29% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.05 vs 1.00), 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.