GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GLDW.L (WisdomTree Core Physical Gold) and CSH2.L (Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDW.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while CSH2.L is a Money Market fund actively managed by Amundi. GLDW.L is passively managed, while CSH2.L is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDW.L returned 19.87%/yr vs 3.66%/yr for CSH2.L. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. GLDW.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSH2.L.

Performance

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) and Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDW.L achieves a 3.96% return, which is significantly higher than CSH2.L's 1.74% return.

GLDW.L

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -1.34%
• YTD: 3.96%
• 6M: 5.38%
• 1Y: 33.68%
• 3Y*: 28.15%
• 5Y*: 19.87%
• 10Y*: —

CSH2.L

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.74%
• 6M: 2.08%
• 1Y: 4.38%
• 3Y*: 5.01%
• 5Y*: 3.66%
• 10Y*: 2.07%

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

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GLDW.L WisdomTree Core Physical Gold	3.96%	53.57%	28.18%	7.26%	11.82%	9.07%
CSH2.L Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP	1.74%	4.67%	5.61%	4.72%	1.54%	0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDW.L and CSH2.L is -0.04, 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	-0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 16, 2021	-0.00

Return for Risk

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLDW.L

GLDW.L Risk / Return Rank: 40
GLDW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
GLDW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
GLDW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 47
GLDW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
GLDW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 34

CSH2.L

CSH2.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
CSH2.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.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.

	GLDW.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	8.05	-6.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	15.06	-13.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	4.37	-3.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	27.66	-25.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.05	159.04	-153.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDW.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is lower than the CSH2.L Sharpe Ratio of 8.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDW.L and CSH2.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLDW.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	8.05	-6.59
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.23	6.49	-5.26
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	4.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.30	4.62	-3.32

Drawdowns

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDW.L drawdown since its inception was -17.86%, 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 GLDW.L and CSH2.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDW.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.86%	-0.37%	-17.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.86%	-0.16%	-17.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.86%	-0.29%	-17.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.86%	-0.29%	-17.57%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.93%	0.00%	-15.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.58%	-0.00%	-3.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.65%	0.03%	+6.62%

Volatility

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) has a higher volatility of 5.09% compared to Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L) at 0.08%. This indicates that GLDW.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.

Volatility by Period

	GLDW.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.09%	0.08%	+5.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.81%	0.25%	+19.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.95%	0.54%	+22.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.09%	0.56%	+15.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.94%	0.44%	+15.50%

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDW.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

GLDW.L vs. CSH2.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLDW.L nor CSH2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDW.L and CSH2.L in my portfolio?

GLDW.L and CSH2.L have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLDW.L or CSH2.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDW.L or CSH2.L?

CSH2.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for GLDW.L.

What is the main difference between GLDW.L and CSH2.L?

GLDW.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CSH2.L is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GLDW.L and 0.07% for CSH2.L.