FGDL vs. DGZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) and DGZ (DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes) are both exchange-traded funds - FGDL is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while DGZ is a Inverse Commodities fund tracking the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index - Optimum Yield Gold Excess Return (-100%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FGDL returned 28.79%/yr vs -14.24%/yr for DGZ. At a correlation of -0.51, they often move in opposite directions. FGDL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DGZ.

Performance

FGDL vs. DGZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes (DGZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGDL achieves a -4.86% return, which is significantly lower than DGZ's 13.79% return.

FGDL

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

DGZ

• 1D: 4.60%
• 1M: 27.91%
• YTD: 13.79%
• 6M: 21.33%
• 1Y: -7.69%
• 3Y*: -14.24%
• 5Y*: -9.28%
• 10Y*: -7.12%

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

FGDL vs. DGZ - 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%
DGZ DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes	13.79%	-32.55%	-16.46%	-4.75%	3.37%

Correlation

The correlation between FGDL and DGZ is -0.41, 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	-0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2022	-0.51

The correlation between FGDL and DGZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.51 to -0.41 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FGDL vs. DGZ — 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

DGZ

DGZ Risk / Return Rank: 9
DGZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
DGZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
DGZ Omega Ratio Rank: 11
DGZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
DGZ Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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. DGZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes (DGZ). 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	DGZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	-0.11	+0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.12	0.36	+0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.05	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	-0.20	+1.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.31	-0.35	+2.66

FGDL vs. DGZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGDL Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is higher than the DGZ Sharpe Ratio of -0.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGDL and DGZ, 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. DGZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGDL drawdown since its inception was -24.73%, smaller than the maximum DGZ drawdown of -86.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGDL and DGZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGDL	DGZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.73%	-86.32%	+61.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.73%	-38.32%	+13.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.73%	-59.54%	+34.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.54%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.98%	-80.51%	+56.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-57.80%	+53.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.24%	22.24%	-13.00%

Volatility

FGDL vs. DGZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) is 8.47%, while DB Gold Short Exchange Traded Notes (DGZ) has a volatility of 45.91%. This indicates that FGDL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DGZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGDL	DGZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.47%	45.91%	-37.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.48%	58.66%	-34.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.83%	69.62%	-41.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.33%	36.50%	-17.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.33%	28.17%	-8.84%

FGDL vs. DGZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGDL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than DGZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGDL vs. DGZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FGDL nor DGZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGDL and DGZ in my portfolio?

FGDL and DGZ have a correlation of -0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FGDL or DGZ?

DGZ has higher volatility (45.91%) compared to FGDL (8.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGDL dropped -24.73% vs DGZ's -86.32%.

Which ETF is better, FGDL or DGZ?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 28.79% vs -14.24% for DGZ. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FGDL has been the lower-risk option at 8.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FGDL or DGZ?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 28.79% return vs -14.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGDL or DGZ?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DGZ.

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

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

What is the main difference between FGDL and DGZ?

FGDL is categorized as Gold, while DGZ is Inverse Commodities. FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while DGZ tracks Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index - Optimum Yield Gold Excess Return (-100%). They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Deutsche Bank. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FGDL and 0.75% for DGZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.77 vs -0.11), 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.