CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CSH.PA (Amundi EUR Overnight Return UCITS ETF Acc) and PPFB.DE (iShares Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - CSH.PA is a Money Market fund tracking the Solactive Euro Overnight Return Index, while PPFB.DE is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CSH.PA returned 2.96%/yr vs 27.71%/yr for PPFB.DE. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CSH.PA charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for PPFB.DE.

Performance

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in Amundi EUR Overnight Return UCITS ETF Acc (CSH.PA) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CSH.PA achieves a 0.77% return, which is significantly lower than PPFB.DE's 2.11% return.

CSH.PA

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 0.77%
• 6M: 0.94%
• 1Y: 2.00%
• 3Y*: 2.96%
• 5Y*: 1.89%
• 10Y*: 0.92%

PPFB.DE

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: -1.33%
• YTD: 2.11%
• 6M: 5.59%
• 1Y: 29.72%
• 3Y*: 27.71%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CSH.PA Amundi EUR Overnight Return UCITS ETF Acc	0.77%	2.25%	3.69%	3.22%	-0.06%	-0.31%
PPFB.DE iShares Physical Gold ETC	2.11%	49.11%	34.17%	9.42%	7.03%	3.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CSH.PA and PPFB.DE is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2021	0.02

Return for Risk

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSH.PA

CSH.PA Risk / Return Rank: 97
CSH.PA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CSH.PA Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CSH.PA Omega Ratio Rank: 97
CSH.PA Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CSH.PA Martin Ratio Rank: 98

PPFB.DE

PPFB.DE Risk / Return Rank: 34
PPFB.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
PPFB.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
PPFB.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 37
PPFB.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
PPFB.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi EUR Overnight Return UCITS ETF Acc (CSH.PA) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE). 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.

	CSH.PA	PPFB.DE	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.97	1.28	+2.69
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	6.63	1.73	+4.90
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.97	1.25	+0.71
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.26	1.78	+9.48
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	57.42	4.57	+52.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSH.PA Sharpe Ratio is 3.97, which is higher than the PPFB.DE Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSH.PA and PPFB.DE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CSH.PA	PPFB.DE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.97	1.28	+2.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	5.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	1.25	-0.47

Drawdowns

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSH.PA drawdown since its inception was -3.73%, smaller than the maximum PPFB.DE drawdown of -16.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSH.PA and PPFB.DE.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSH.PA	PPFB.DE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.73%	-16.60%	+12.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.18%	-16.60%	+16.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.18%	-16.60%	+16.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-0.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-2.27%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-15.52%	+15.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.04%	-4.39%	+3.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.03%	6.48%	-6.45%

Volatility

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi EUR Overnight Return UCITS ETF Acc (CSH.PA) is 0.09%, while iShares Physical Gold ETC (PPFB.DE) has a volatility of 5.54%. This indicates that CSH.PA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PPFB.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CSH.PA	PPFB.DE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.09%	5.54%	-5.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.41%	20.21%	-19.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50%	23.11%	-22.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.35%	16.13%	-15.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.64%	16.13%	-15.49%

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSH.PA has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than PPFB.DE's 0.12% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CSH.PA vs. PPFB.DE - Dividend Comparison

Neither CSH.PA nor PPFB.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CSH.PA Amundi EUR Overnight Return UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.05%	0.05%	2.60%
PPFB.DE iShares Physical Gold ETC	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSH.PA and PPFB.DE in my portfolio?

CSH.PA and PPFB.DE have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CSH.PA or PPFB.DE?

On fees, CSH.PA is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSH.PA or PPFB.DE?

CSH.PA is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for PPFB.DE.

What is the main difference between CSH.PA and PPFB.DE?

CSH.PA is categorized as Money Market, while PPFB.DE is Precious Metals. CSH.PA tracks Solactive Euro Overnight Return Index, while PPFB.DE tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for CSH.PA and 0.12% for PPFB.DE.