FGDL vs. AAAU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both Gold funds - FGDL tracks the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt) while AAAU tracks the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FGDL returned 28.79%/yr vs 28.67%/yr for AAAU. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FGDL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.

Performance

FGDL vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FGDL having a -4.86% return and AAAU slightly higher at -4.75%.

FGDL

• 1D: -1.86%
• 1M: -8.58%
• YTD: -4.86%
• 6M: -8.67%
• 1Y: 21.26%
• 3Y*: 28.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AAAU

• 1D: -1.86%
• 1M: -8.80%
• YTD: -4.75%
• 6M: -8.61%
• 1Y: 21.51%
• 3Y*: 28.67%
• 5Y*: 18.07%
• 10Y*: —

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

FGDL vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	-4.86%	64.15%	27.31%	12.92%	0.72%
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	-4.75%	64.06%	26.91%	12.96%	0.11%

Correlation

The correlation between FGDL and AAAU is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2022	0.99

The correlation between FGDL and AAAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FGDL vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 21
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 20

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 22
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 25
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

FGDL vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.

	FGDL	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	0.79	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.12	1.15	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.17	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	0.89	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.31	2.39	-0.08

FGDL vs. AAAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGDL Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is comparable to the AAAU Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGDL and AAAU, 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

FGDL vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGDL drawdown since its inception was -24.73%, roughly equal to the maximum AAAU drawdown of -24.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGDL and AAAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGDL	AAAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.73%	-24.38%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.73%	-24.38%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.73%	-24.38%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.98%	-23.83%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-6.28%	+2.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.24%	9.05%	+0.19%

Volatility

FGDL vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) have volatilities of 8.47% and 8.16%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGDL	AAAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.47%	8.16%	+0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.48%	24.16%	+0.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.83%	27.30%	+0.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.33%	18.08%	+1.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.33%	17.16%	+2.17%

FGDL vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGDL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than AAAU's 0.18% 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

FGDL vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison

Neither FGDL nor AAAU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGDL and AAAU in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, FGDL and AAAU move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FGDL or AAAU?

FGDL has higher volatility (8.47%) compared to AAAU (8.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGDL dropped -24.73% vs AAAU's -24.38%.

Which ETF is better, FGDL or AAAU?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 28.79% vs 28.67% for AAAU. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, AAAU has been the lower-risk option at 8.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FGDL or AAAU?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 28.79% return vs 28.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGDL or AAAU?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for AAAU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FGDL or AAAU?

FGDL and AAAU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FGDL and AAAU?

FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FGDL and 0.18% for AAAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AAAU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.79 vs 0.77), 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.