CEFD vs. GLDI
CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) and GLDI (UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033) are both exchange-traded funds - CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%), while GLDI is a Gold fund tracking the Credit Suisse NASDAQ Gold FLOWS 103 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEFD returned 2.85%/yr vs 10.96%/yr for GLDI. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEFD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for GLDI.
Performance
CEFD vs. GLDI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEFD achieves a 5.55% return, which is significantly higher than GLDI's -4.45% return.
CEFD
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- 0.88%
- YTD
- 5.55%
- 6M
- 5.82%
- 1Y
- 16.51%
- 3Y*
- 14.99%
- 5Y*
- 2.85%
- 10Y*
- —
GLDI
- 1D
- -1.62%
- 1M
- -7.19%
- YTD
- -4.45%
- 6M
- -5.42%
- 1Y
- 11.67%
- 3Y*
- 17.47%
- 5Y*
- 10.96%
- 10Y*
- 7.83%
CEFD vs. GLDI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 5.55% | 14.15% | 20.06% | 8.36% | -28.93% | 22.09% | 23.01% |
GLDI UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 | -4.45% | 34.25% | 17.76% | 8.93% | -1.11% | -3.42% | 8.20% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEFD and GLDI is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2020 | 0.23 |
The correlation between CEFD and GLDI shifts across timeframes, from 0.23 (5 years) to 0.35 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CEFD vs. GLDI — Risk / Return Rank
CEFD
GLDI
CEFD vs. GLDI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) and UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 (GLDI). 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.
| CEFD | GLDI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.52 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.77 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.16 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.33 | 0.83 | +0.50 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.09 | 2.73 | +3.36 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CEFD vs. GLDI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEFD drawdown since its inception was -36.95%, which is greater than GLDI's maximum drawdown of -32.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFD and GLDI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEFD | GLDI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.95% | -32.26% | -4.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.51% | -14.14% | +1.63% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.76% | -14.14% | -7.62% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -36.95% | -14.14% | -22.81% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -14.94% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.80% | -13.28% | +11.48% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.63% | -13.99% | +2.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.72% | 4.30% | -1.58% |
Volatility
CEFD vs. GLDI - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) is 4.13%, while UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 (GLDI) has a volatility of 7.18%. This indicates that CEFD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLDI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEFD | GLDI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.13% | 7.18% | -3.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.71% | 14.58% | -2.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.28% | 15.99% | -2.71% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.99% | 11.58% | +6.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.30% | 11.52% | +5.78% |
CEFD vs. GLDI - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEFD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDI's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEFD vs. GLDI - Dividend Comparison
CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.84%, less than GLDI's 26.67% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 14.84% | 14.88% | 13.90% | 14.76% | 16.56% | 10.31% | 5.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GLDI UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 | 26.67% | 16.15% | 10.45% | 10.02% | 13.73% | 10.65% | 14.25% | 7.25% | 5.33% | 7.77% | 17.26% | 10.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CEFD and GLDI have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLDI has higher volatility (7.18%) compared to CEFD (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFD dropped -36.95% vs GLDI's -32.26%.
On 5-year performance, GLDI leads with 10.96% vs 2.85% for CEFD. On fees, GLDI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, GLDI has performed better with a 10.96% return vs 2.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GLDI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for CEFD.
GLDI has the higher dividend yield at 26.67%, compared with 14.84% for CEFD.
CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%), while GLDI tracks Credit Suisse NASDAQ Gold FLOWS 103 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for CEFD and 0.65% for GLDI.
CEFD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 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.
Find the right allocation for CEFD and GLDI
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer