GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L
GLDA.L (Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)) and CSH2.L (Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDA.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while CSH2.L is a Money Market fund actively managed by Amundi. GLDA.L is passively managed, while CSH2.L is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDA.L returned 19.92%/yr vs 3.65%/yr for CSH2.L. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. GLDA.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSH2.L.
Performance
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLDA.L achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly higher than CSH2.L's 1.71% return.
GLDA.L
- 1D
- -1.21%
- 1M
- -2.91%
- YTD
- 3.18%
- 6M
- 4.27%
- 1Y
- 33.20%
- 3Y*
- 27.70%
- 5Y*
- 19.92%
- 10Y*
- —
CSH2.L
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- YTD
- 1.71%
- 6M
- 2.09%
- 1Y
- 4.37%
- 3Y*
- 4.99%
- 5Y*
- 3.65%
- 10Y*
- 2.07%
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLDA.L Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) | 3.18% | 53.56% | 28.19% | 7.26% | 12.68% | -3.12% | -2.69% |
CSH2.L Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP | 1.71% | 4.67% | 5.61% | 4.72% | 1.54% | 0.13% | 0.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLDA.L and CSH2.L is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2020 | -0.00 |
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
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L — Risk / Return Rank
GLDA.L
CSH2.L
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) and Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.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.
| GLDA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -6.63 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -13.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 4.37 | -3.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.85 | 27.61 | -25.77 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.02 | 158.77 | -153.75 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GLDA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.41 | 8.04 | -6.63 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.40 | 6.48 | -5.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 4.68 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.06 | 4.61 | -3.56 |
Drawdowns
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLDA.L drawdown since its inception was -21.57%, which is greater than CSH2.L's maximum drawdown of -0.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDA.L and CSH2.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLDA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.57% | -0.37% | -21.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.90% | -0.16% | -17.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.90% | -0.29% | -17.61% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.90% | -0.29% | -17.61% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -0.37% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.61% | 0.00% | -16.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.40% | -0.00% | -5.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.59% | 0.03% | +6.56% |
Volatility
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Volatility Comparison
Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) has a higher volatility of 5.18% compared to Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L) at 0.08%. This indicates that GLDA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSH2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLDA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.18% | 0.08% | +5.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.40% | 0.25% | +20.15% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.46% | 0.54% | +22.92% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.66% | 0.56% | +17.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.02% | 0.44% | +17.58% |
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLDA.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is higher than CSH2.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
GLDA.L vs. CSH2.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither GLDA.L nor CSH2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
GLDA.L and CSH2.L have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSH2.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSH2.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for GLDA.L.
GLDA.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CSH2.L is Money Market. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GLDA.L and 0.07% for CSH2.L.
Find the right allocation for GLDA.L and CSH2.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