EKG vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EKG (First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EKG is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Lux Health Tech Index, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EKG returned -0.25%/yr vs 29.08%/yr for GLTR. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EKG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

EKG vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) 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, EKG achieves a -7.35% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's -9.21% return.

EKG

• 1D: 1.44%
• 1M: 5.58%
• YTD: -7.35%
• 6M: -8.68%
• 1Y: 2.67%
• 3Y*: -0.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLTR

• 1D: -3.07%
• 1M: -12.32%
• YTD: -9.21%
• 6M: -12.60%
• 1Y: 33.31%
• 3Y*: 29.08%
• 5Y*: 14.31%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

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

EKG vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EKG First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF	-7.35%	11.89%	6.53%	-0.11%	-20.15%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-9.21%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-8.13%

Correlation

The correlation between EKG and GLTR is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2022	0.22

Return for Risk

EKG vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EKG

EKG Risk / Return Rank: 10
EKG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
EKG Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
EKG Omega Ratio Rank: 10
EKG Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
EKG Martin Ratio Rank: 10

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 24
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

EKG vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) 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.

	EKG	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.12	0.86	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.33	1.22	-0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.19	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.12	0.97	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.26	2.27	-2.01

EKG vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EKG Sharpe Ratio is 0.12, which is lower than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 0.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EKG 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

EKG vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EKG drawdown since its inception was -43.82%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EKG and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EKG	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.82%	-55.70%	+11.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.09%	-34.55%	+12.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.49%	-34.55%	+0.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.55%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.55%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.36%	-34.55%	+16.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.59%	-28.83%	+6.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.17%	14.68%	-4.51%

Volatility

EKG vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Nasdaq Lux Digital Health Solutions ETF (EKG) is 8.01%, while abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 10.06%. This indicates that EKG 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

	EKG	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.01%	10.06%	-2.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.55%	36.51%	-18.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.29%	38.78%	-16.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.08%	23.90%	+3.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.08%	20.68%	+6.40%

EKG vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EKG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

EKG vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither EKG nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EKG and GLTR in my portfolio?

EKG and GLTR have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EKG or GLTR?

GLTR has higher volatility (10.06%) compared to EKG (8.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EKG dropped -43.82% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, EKG or GLTR?

On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 29.08% vs -0.25% for EKG. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, EKG has been the lower-risk option at 8.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EKG or GLTR?

Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 29.08% return vs -0.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EKG or GLTR?

GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EKG.

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

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

What is the main difference between EKG and GLTR?

EKG is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while GLTR is Precious Metals. EKG tracks NASDAQ Lux Health Tech Index, while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EKG and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.86 vs 0.12), 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.