FGDL vs. GLL

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) and GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) are both exchange-traded funds - FGDL is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FGDL returned 27.63%/yr vs -38.64%/yr for GLL. Their -0.98 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. FGDL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for GLL.

Performance

FGDL vs. GLL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGDL achieves a -6.34% return, which is significantly lower than GLL's 1.26% return.

FGDL

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -1.51%
• 6M: -13.15%
• YTD: -6.34%
• 1Y: 20.61%
• 3Y*: 27.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.59%

GLL

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 3.32%
• 6M: 23.22%
• YTD: 1.26%
• 1Y: -39.18%
• 3Y*: -38.64%
• 5Y*: -27.51%
• 10Y*: -20.82%
• ALL TIME*: -21.77%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	$970.05K	$896.65K	$1.27M
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	$40.14M	$37.19M	$59.19M

FGDL vs. GLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	-6.34%	64.15%	27.31%	12.92%	0.72%
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	1.26%	-62.81%	-33.33%	-14.91%	-0.61%

Correlation

The correlation between FGDL and GLL is -0.98, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.98
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2022	-0.98

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

Return for Risk

FGDL vs. GLL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 28
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 23

GLL

GLL Risk / Return Rank: 4
GLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
GLL Omega Ratio Rank: 4
GLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
GLL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FGDL vs. GLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL). 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	GLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.73	-0.71	+1.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.08	-0.96	+2.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	0.89	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.78	-0.61	+1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.66	-0.89	+2.55

FGDL vs. GLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGDL Sharpe Ratio is 0.73, which is higher than the GLL Sharpe Ratio of -0.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGDL and GLL, 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. GLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGDL drawdown since its inception was -26.58%, smaller than the maximum GLL drawdown of -99.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGDL and GLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGDL	GLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.58%	-99.24%	+72.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.58%	-64.23%	+37.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-87.95%	+61.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-89.76%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-95.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.16%	-98.74%	+73.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.65%	-85.24%	+80.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.43%	44.13%	-31.70%

Volatility

FGDL vs. GLL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) is 5.87%, while ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a volatility of 11.92%. This indicates that FGDL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGDL	GLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.87%	11.92%	-6.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.00%	41.51%	-20.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.25%	55.36%	-27.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.39%	36.89%	-17.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.39%	32.49%	-13.10%

FGDL vs. GLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGDL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than GLL's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGDL vs. GLL - Dividend Comparison

Neither FGDL nor GLL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGDL and GLL in my portfolio?

FGDL and GLL have a correlation of -0.98, 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 GLL?

GLL has higher volatility (11.92%) compared to FGDL (5.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGDL dropped -26.58% vs GLL's -99.24%.

Which ETF is better, FGDL or GLL?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 27.63% vs -38.64% for GLL. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FGDL has been the lower-risk option at 5.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FGDL or GLL?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 27.63% return vs -38.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGDL or GLL?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLL.

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

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

What is the main difference between FGDL and GLL?

FGDL is categorized as Gold, while GLL is Leveraged Commodities. FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLL tracks Bloomberg Gold (-200%). They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FGDL and 0.95% for GLL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.73 vs -0.71), 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.