CU31.L vs. SGLP.L
CU31.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc)) and SGLP.L (Invesco Physical Gold A) are both exchange-traded funds - CU31.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE US Treasury 1-3 Year Index, while SGLP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CU31.L returned 2.48%/yr vs 14.26%/yr for SGLP.L. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CU31.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for SGLP.L.
Performance
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CU31.L achieves a 0.66% return, which is significantly lower than SGLP.L's 3.97% return. Over the past 10 years, CU31.L has underperformed SGLP.L with an annualized return of 2.48%, while SGLP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 14.26% annualized return.
CU31.L
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- 1.13%
- YTD
- 0.66%
- 6M
- 0.30%
- 1Y
- 4.42%
- 3Y*
- 1.49%
- 5Y*
- 2.92%
- 10Y*
- 2.48%
SGLP.L
- 1D
- 0.70%
- 1M
- -1.36%
- YTD
- 3.97%
- 6M
- 5.45%
- 1Y
- 33.77%
- 3Y*
- 28.15%
- 5Y*
- 19.87%
- 10Y*
- 14.26%
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CU31.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.66% | -1.98% | 5.81% | -1.58% | 7.82% | 0.48% | -0.40% | 0.29% | 7.25% | -8.69% |
SGLP.L Invesco Physical Gold A | 3.97% | 53.60% | 28.14% | 7.26% | 11.83% | -2.88% | 19.99% | 14.65% | 4.31% | 1.64% |
Correlation
The correlation between CU31.L and SGLP.L is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.12 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2013 | 0.29 |
The correlation between CU31.L and SGLP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.30 (10 years), 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
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L — Risk / Return Rank
CU31.L
SGLP.L
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU31.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L). 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.
| CU31.L | SGLP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.74 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.81 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 1.29 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.97 | 1.88 | -0.90 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.47 | 5.06 | -2.59 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CU31.L | SGLP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.72 | 1.46 | -0.74 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.36 | 1.23 | -0.87 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.27 | 0.91 | -0.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.28 | 0.53 | -0.26 |
Drawdowns
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CU31.L drawdown since its inception was -18.80%, smaller than the maximum SGLP.L drawdown of -38.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CU31.L and SGLP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CU31.L | SGLP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.80% | -38.83% | +20.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.51% | -17.89% | +13.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.91% | -17.89% | +8.98% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.29% | -17.89% | +1.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -18.80% | -22.34% | +3.54% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.61% | -15.97% | +8.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.23% | -13.37% | +5.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.78% | 6.65% | -4.87% |
Volatility
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (CU31.L) is 1.63%, while Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L) has a volatility of 5.10%. This indicates that CU31.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SGLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CU31.L | SGLP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.63% | 5.10% | -3.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.46% | 19.90% | -15.44% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.11% | 23.02% | -16.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.05% | 16.11% | -8.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.19% | 15.72% | -6.53% |
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CU31.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than SGLP.L'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
CU31.L vs. SGLP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CU31.L nor SGLP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CU31.L and SGLP.L have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CU31.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CU31.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for SGLP.L.
CU31.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while SGLP.L is Precious Metals. CU31.L tracks ICE US Treasury 1-3 Year Index, while SGLP.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for CU31.L and 0.12% for SGLP.L.
Find the right allocation for CU31.L and SGLP.L
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