FGDL vs. GLD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) and GLD (SPDR Gold Shares) are both exchange-traded funds - FGDL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLD is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FGDL returned 31.32%/yr vs 31.09%/yr for GLD. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FGDL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GLD.

Performance

FGDL vs. GLD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGDL achieves a 2.43% return, which is significantly lower than GLD's 2.92% return.

FGDL

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 2.43%
• 6M: 4.89%
• 1Y: 31.70%
• 3Y*: 31.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLD

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -1.65%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 6M: 5.43%
• 1Y: 32.04%
• 3Y*: 31.09%
• 5Y*: 18.15%
• 10Y*: 13.12%

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

FGDL vs. GLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	2.43%	64.15%	27.31%	12.92%	0.91%
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	2.92%	63.68%	26.66%	12.69%	0.70%

Correlation

The correlation between FGDL and GLD 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 Jul 1, 2022	0.99

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

Return for Risk

FGDL vs. GLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 31
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 28

GLD

GLD Risk / Return Rank: 32
GLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLD Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
GLD Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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. GLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). 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.

	FGDL	GLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	1.21	-0.02
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.57	1.60	-0.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.24	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.66	1.68	-0.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.03	4.15	-0.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FGDL vs. GLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGDL Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the GLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGDL and GLD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FGDL	GLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.19	1.21	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.01	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.83	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.35	0.60	+0.75

Drawdowns

FGDL vs. GLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGDL drawdown since its inception was -19.23%, smaller than the maximum GLD drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGDL and GLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGDL	GLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.23%	-45.56%	+26.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.23%	-19.21%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.23%	-19.21%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.16%	-17.75%	-0.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-16.16%	+12.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.88%	7.73%	+0.15%

Volatility

FGDL vs. GLD - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) have volatilities of 5.61% and 5.51%, 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	GLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.61%	5.51%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.18%	23.16%	+0.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.78%	26.61%	+0.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.03%	18.00%	+1.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.03%	15.95%	+3.08%

FGDL vs. GLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGDL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than GLD's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGDL vs. GLD - Dividend Comparison

Neither FGDL nor GLD has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGDL and GLD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, FGDL and GLD 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 GLD?

FGDL has higher volatility (5.61%) compared to GLD (5.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGDL dropped -19.23% vs GLD's -45.56%.

Which ETF is better, FGDL or GLD?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 31.32% vs 31.09% for GLD. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FGDL or GLD?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 31.32% return vs 31.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGDL or GLD?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GLD.

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

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

What is the main difference between FGDL and GLD?

FGDL is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLD is Gold. FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLD tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FGDL and 0.40% for GLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.21 vs 1.19), 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.