FGPMX vs. CEF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FGPMX (Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund Class R6) and CEF (Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust) are both Gold funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FGPMX returned 22.78%/yr vs 18.01%/yr for CEF. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FGPMX charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for CEF.

Performance

FGPMX vs. CEF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund Class R6 (FGPMX) and Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGPMX achieves a -0.33% return, which is significantly higher than CEF's -6.55% return.

FGPMX

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: -2.84%
• YTD: -0.33%
• 6M: -3.19%
• 1Y: 79.21%
• 3Y*: 51.45%
• 5Y*: 22.78%
• 10Y*: —

CEF

• 1D: -1.13%
• 1M: -9.57%
• YTD: -6.55%
• 6M: -7.24%
• 1Y: 40.93%
• 3Y*: 33.65%
• 5Y*: 18.01%
• 10Y*: 12.06%

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

FGPMX vs. CEF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FGPMX Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund Class R6	-0.33%	197.33%	18.11%	2.35%	-23.15%	-3.66%	44.76%	52.07%	-17.76%	-10.66%
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	-6.55%	92.76%	24.07%	6.80%	1.07%	-8.32%	31.99%	16.91%	-6.34%	3.00%

Correlation

The correlation between FGPMX and CEF is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2017	0.76

The correlation between FGPMX and CEF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FGPMX vs. CEF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGPMX

FGPMX Risk / Return Rank: 33
FGPMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FGPMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FGPMX Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FGPMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
FGPMX Martin Ratio Rank: 27

CEF

CEF Risk / Return Rank: 16
CEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
CEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
CEF Omega Ratio Rank: 20
CEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CEF Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

FGPMX vs. CEF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund Class R6 (FGPMX) and Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). 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.

	FGPMX	CEF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	1.05	+0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	1.42	+0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.22	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.17	1.37	+0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.02	3.45	+2.58

FGPMX vs. CEF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGPMX Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is higher than the CEF Sharpe Ratio of 1.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGPMX and CEF, 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

FGPMX vs. CEF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGPMX drawdown since its inception was -48.71%, smaller than the maximum CEF drawdown of -62.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGPMX and CEF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGPMX	CEF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.71%	-62.29%	+13.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.73%	-30.01%	-4.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.73%	-30.01%	-4.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.71%	-30.01%	-18.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.01%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.95%	-27.71%	+1.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.93%	-27.33%	+9.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.48%	11.91%	+0.57%

Volatility

FGPMX vs. CEF - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund Class R6 (FGPMX) has a higher volatility of 16.62% compared to Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) at 10.63%. This indicates that FGPMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGPMX	CEF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.62%	10.63%	+5.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.77%	36.30%	+1.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.20%	39.13%	+5.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.15%	24.57%	+9.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.65%	22.01%	+10.64%

FGPMX vs. CEF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGPMX has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than CEF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGPMX vs. CEF - Dividend Comparison

FGPMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.70%, while CEF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.08%	0.07%	0.09%	0.10%
FGPMX Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund Class R6	9.70%	9.67%	12.41%	3.18%	0.00%	8.79%	10.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.82%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGPMX and CEF in my portfolio?

FGPMX and CEF have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FGPMX or CEF?

FGPMX has higher volatility (16.62%) compared to CEF (10.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGPMX dropped -48.71% vs CEF's -62.29%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGPMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.70 vs 1.05), 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.