PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

GDGB.L is traded in GBP, while SGLP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the SGLP.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDGB.L achieves a -9.63% return, which is significantly lower than SGLP.L's -4.91% return.


GDGB.L

1D
1.30%
1M
-11.13%
YTD
-9.63%
6M
-13.73%
1Y
52.81%
3Y*
36.08%
5Y*
19.88%
10Y*

SGLP.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-9.15%
YTD
-4.91%
6M
-8.44%
1Y
24.68%
3Y*
26.04%
5Y*
18.76%
10Y*
11.56%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GDGB.L
VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF
-9.63%138.26%11.24%3.69%3.04%-10.47%19.56%38.86%-5.04%-3.87%
SGLP.L
Invesco Physical Gold A
-4.91%53.60%28.14%7.26%11.83%-2.88%19.99%14.65%4.31%-3.46%

Correlation

The correlation between GDGB.L and SGLP.L is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.78

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.72

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2017

0.69

The correlation between GDGB.L and SGLP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (5 years) to 0.78 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDGB.L
GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3737
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

SGLP.L
SGLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L). 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.


GDGB.LSGLP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.21

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.52

1.06

+0.46

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.92

2.98

+0.93

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDGB.L and SGLP.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDGB.L drawdown since its inception was -40.80%, smaller than the maximum SGLP.L drawdown of -63.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDGB.L and SGLP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GDGB.LSGLP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.80%

-63.75%

+22.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-34.64%

-23.15%

-11.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-34.64%

-23.15%

-11.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.49%

-23.15%

-12.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-32.59%

-23.15%

-9.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.58%

-31.70%

+14.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.44%

8.25%

+5.19%

Volatility

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a higher volatility of 16.75% compared to Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L) at 8.10%. This indicates that GDGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SGLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GDGB.LSGLP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

16.75%

8.10%

+8.65%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

36.16%

21.09%

+15.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

44.22%

23.92%

+20.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.25%

21.77%

+11.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.39%

18.33%

+14.06%

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDGB.L has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLP.L's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

GDGB.L vs. SGLP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GDGB.L nor SGLP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


GDGB.L and SGLP.L have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SGLP.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SGLP.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for GDGB.L.

GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, while SGLP.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for GDGB.L and 0.12% for SGLP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GDGB.L and SGLP.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer