DULL vs. GLTR

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

DULL (MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DULL is a Inverse Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt) (-300%), while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, DULL returned -57.82%/yr vs 25.77%/yr for GLTR. At a correlation of -0.92, they often move in opposite directions. DULL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

DULL vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (DULL) 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, DULL achieves a -7.80% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's -12.60% return.

DULL

• 1D: 7.78%
• 1M: 14.10%
• 6M: 11.44%
• YTD: -7.80%
• 1Y: -59.77%
• 3Y*: -57.82%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLTR

• 1D: -2.77%
• 1M: -8.33%
• 6M: -21.90%
• YTD: -12.60%
• 1Y: 25.79%
• 3Y*: 25.77%
• 5Y*: 12.74%
• 10Y*: 10.23%

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

DULL vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DULL MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-7.80%	-80.59%	-51.68%	-28.84%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-12.60%	87.25%	20.63%	6.59%

Correlation

The correlation between DULL and GLTR is -0.92, 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	-0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2023	-0.92

The correlation between DULL and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.92 to -0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

DULL vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

DULL

DULL Risk / Return Rank: 4
DULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
DULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
DULL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
DULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
DULL Martin Ratio Rank: 4

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 22
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 27
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

DULL vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (DULL) 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.

	DULL	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.73	0.66	-1.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.06	1.01	-2.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	1.16	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.73	0.69	-1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.00	1.54	-2.54

DULL vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DULL Sharpe Ratio is -0.73, which is lower than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 0.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DULL 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

DULL vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DULL drawdown since its inception was -97.12%, which is greater than GLTR's maximum drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DULL and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	DULL	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.12%	-55.70%	-41.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-81.92%	-37.52%	-44.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-97.12%	-37.52%	-59.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.52%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-94.05%	-37.00%	-57.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-60.32%	-28.85%	-31.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	59.81%	16.79%	+43.02%

Volatility

DULL vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (DULL) has a higher volatility of 22.82% compared to abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) at 9.95%. This indicates that DULL'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

	DULL	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.82%	9.95%	+12.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	69.93%	35.53%	+34.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	82.31%	39.31%	+43.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.12%	24.08%	+35.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	59.12%	20.76%	+38.36%

DULL vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

DULL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

DULL vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither DULL nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DULL and GLTR in my portfolio?

DULL and GLTR have a correlation of -0.92, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DULL or GLTR?

DULL has higher volatility (22.82%) compared to GLTR (9.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DULL dropped -97.12% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, DULL or GLTR?

On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 25.77% vs -57.82% for DULL. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, GLTR has been the lower-risk option at 9.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DULL or GLTR?

Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 25.77% return vs -57.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DULL or GLTR?

GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for DULL.

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

DULL and GLTR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between DULL and GLTR?

DULL is categorized as Inverse Commodities, while GLTR is Precious Metals. DULL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt) (-300%), while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. They also come from different issuers: REX and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for DULL and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.66 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.