PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GLDW.L vs. GLDA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GLDW.L vs. GLDA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GLDW.L having a 3.96% return and GLDA.L slightly lower at 3.93%.


GLDW.L

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

GLDA.L

1D
0.72%
1M
-1.41%
YTD
3.93%
6M
5.34%
1Y
33.65%
3Y*
28.01%
5Y*
20.09%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
GLDW.L
WisdomTree Core Physical Gold
3.96%53.57%28.18%7.26%11.82%9.07%
GLDA.L
Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)
3.93%53.56%28.19%7.26%12.68%8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDW.L and GLDA.L is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

1.00

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

0.91

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

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 16, 2021

0.87

The correlation between GLDW.L and GLDA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.87 (all time) to 1.00 (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

GLDW.L vs. GLDA.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: 4040
Overall Rank
GLDW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank

GLDA.L
GLDA.L Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.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.LGLDA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.28

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.88

1.87

+0.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.05

5.03

+0.02

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

The current GLDW.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDW.L and GLDA.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GLDW.LGLDA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.46

1.43

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.23

1.41

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.30

1.07

+0.24

Drawdowns

GLDW.L vs. GLDA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDW.L drawdown since its inception was -17.86%, smaller than the maximum GLDA.L drawdown of -21.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDW.L and GLDA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GLDW.LGLDA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.86%

-21.57%

+3.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.86%

-17.90%

+0.04%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.86%

-17.90%

+0.04%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.86%

-17.90%

+0.04%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.93%

-16.00%

+0.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.58%

-5.40%

+1.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.65%

6.67%

-0.02%

Volatility

GLDW.L vs. GLDA.L - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) have volatilities of 5.09% and 5.20%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GLDW.LGLDA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.09%

5.20%

-0.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.81%

20.39%

-0.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.95%

23.46%

-0.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.09%

17.65%

-1.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.94%

18.02%

-2.08%

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

Both GLDW.L and GLDA.L have an expense ratio of 0.12%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

GLDW.L vs. GLDA.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 1.00, GLDW.L and GLDA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Both ETFs have the same 0.12% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GLDW.L and GLDA.L have the same expense ratio: 0.12% per year.

Both ETFs track Gold. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Amundi.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GLDW.L and GLDA.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