FGDL vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) and GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both Precious Metals funds - FGDL tracks the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt) while GLTR tracks the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FGDL returned 31.32%/yr vs 32.36%/yr for GLTR. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FGDL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

FGDL vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) and Aberdeen Standard 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, FGDL achieves a 2.43% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's 1.47% return.

FGDL

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

GLTR

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: 1.47%
• 6M: 10.73%
• 1Y: 53.06%
• 3Y*: 32.36%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: 13.17%

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

FGDL vs. GLTR - 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%
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	1.47%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	4.57%

Correlation

The correlation between FGDL and GLTR is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2022	0.91

The correlation between FGDL and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FGDL vs. GLTR — 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

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 36
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GLTR 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. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FGDL	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	1.42	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.57	1.73	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.29	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.66	1.80	-0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.03	4.13	-0.10
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. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGDL Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGDL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FGDL	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.19	1.42	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.65	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.64	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.35	0.32	+1.03

Drawdowns

FGDL vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGDL drawdown since its inception was -19.23%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGDL and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGDL	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.23%	-55.70%	+36.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.23%	-29.70%	+10.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.23%	-29.70%	+10.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.70%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-29.70%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.16%	-26.86%	+8.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-28.83%	+25.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.88%	12.88%	-5.00%

Volatility

FGDL vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) is 5.61%, while Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 9.13%. This indicates that FGDL 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

	FGDL	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.61%	9.13%	-3.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.18%	35.41%	-12.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.78%	37.58%	-10.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.03%	23.63%	-4.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.03%	20.50%	-1.47%

FGDL vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGDL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGDL vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither FGDL nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGDL and GLTR in my portfolio?

FGDL and GLTR have a correlation of 0.88, 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 GLTR?

GLTR has higher volatility (9.13%) compared to FGDL (5.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGDL dropped -19.23% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, FGDL or GLTR?

On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 32.36% vs 31.32% for FGDL. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FGDL has been the lower-risk option at 5.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FGDL or GLTR?

Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 32.36% return vs 31.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGDL or GLTR?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

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

What is the main difference between FGDL and GLTR?

FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FGDL and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 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.