CGDV vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. CGDV is actively managed, while GLTR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGDV returned 24.15%/yr vs 29.97%/yr for GLTR. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGDV charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

CGDV vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) 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, CGDV achieves a 11.55% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's -4.66% return.

CGDV

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 11.55%
• 6M: 12.50%
• 1Y: 28.33%
• 3Y*: 24.15%
• 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)

CGDV vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.55%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-4.66%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-7.86%

Correlation

The correlation between CGDV and GLTR 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.24

Return for Risk

CGDV vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 78
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

CGDV vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) 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.

	CGDV	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	1.04	+1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	1.39	+1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.22	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	1.17	+1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.19	2.88	+10.31

CGDV vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGDV Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is higher than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGDV 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

CGDV vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGDV drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGDV and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGDV	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-55.70%	+33.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.75%	-34.09%	+24.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.28%	-34.09%	+19.81%
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	-0.98%	-31.27%	+30.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.60%	-28.82%	+25.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.09%	13.86%	-11.77%

Volatility

CGDV vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) is 4.52%, while abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 10.43%. This indicates that CGDV 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

	CGDV	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.52%	10.43%	-5.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.80%	36.24%	-26.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.13%	38.40%	-26.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.57%	23.87%	-8.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.57%	20.64%	-5.07%

CGDV vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGDV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGDV vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

CGDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.17%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGDV and GLTR in my portfolio?

CGDV and GLTR 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, CGDV or GLTR?

GLTR has higher volatility (10.43%) compared to CGDV (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGDV dropped -21.82% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, CGDV or GLTR?

On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 29.97% vs 24.15% for CGDV. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGDV has been the lower-risk option at 4.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGDV or GLTR?

Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 29.97% return vs 24.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGDV or GLTR?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

CGDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between CGDV and GLTR?

CGDV is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while GLTR is Precious Metals. They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CGDV and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.04), 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.