GLL vs. ALLW

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) and ALLW (State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%), while ALLW is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by State Street. GLL is passively managed, while ALLW is actively managed. Over the past year, GLL returned -37.00% vs 17.68% for ALLW. At a correlation of -0.60, they often move in opposite directions. GLL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for ALLW.

Performance

GLL vs. ALLW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) and State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLL achieves a 5.05% return, which is significantly lower than ALLW's 6.10% return.

GLL

• 1D: 3.90%
• 1M: 18.00%
• 6M: 19.80%
• YTD: 5.05%
• 1Y: -37.00%
• 3Y*: -37.43%
• 5Y*: -27.00%
• 10Y*: -20.63%

ALLW

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: -1.90%
• 6M: 2.48%
• YTD: 6.10%
• 1Y: 17.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLL vs. ALLW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	5.05%	-54.66%
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	6.10%	15.44%

Correlation

The correlation between GLL and ALLW is -0.67, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025	-0.60

The correlation between GLL and ALLW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.67 to -0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GLL vs. ALLW — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLL

GLL Risk / Return Rank: 4
GLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
GLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
GLL Omega Ratio Rank: 4
GLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
GLL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 59
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 58
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

GLL vs. ALLW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) and State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW). 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.

	GLL	ALLW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.67	1.59	-2.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.87	2.15	-3.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	1.29	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.57	2.46	-3.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.83	8.86	-9.69

GLL vs. ALLW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLL Sharpe Ratio is -0.67, which is lower than the ALLW Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLL and ALLW, 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

GLL vs. ALLW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLL drawdown since its inception was -99.24%, which is greater than ALLW's maximum drawdown of -8.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLL and ALLW.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLL	ALLW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.24%	-8.78%	-90.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.10%	-7.23%	-57.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-87.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-89.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-95.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.70%	-3.61%	-95.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-85.20%	-1.35%	-83.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	44.38%	2.00%	+42.38%

Volatility

GLL vs. ALLW - Volatility Comparison

ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a higher volatility of 12.83% compared to State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) at 2.89%. This indicates that GLL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ALLW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLL	ALLW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.83%	2.89%	+9.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.49%	9.33%	+37.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	55.17%	11.15%	+44.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.73%	12.57%	+24.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.44%	12.57%	+19.87%

GLL vs. ALLW - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than ALLW's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLL vs. ALLW - Dividend Comparison

GLL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ALLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.41%.

Position	TTM	2025
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.41%	4.67%
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLL and ALLW in my portfolio?

GLL and ALLW have a correlation of -0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLL or ALLW?

GLL has higher volatility (12.83%) compared to ALLW (2.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLL dropped -99.24% vs ALLW's -8.78%.

Which ETF is better, GLL or ALLW?

On 1-year performance, ALLW leads with 17.68% vs -37.00% for GLL. On fees, ALLW is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, ALLW has been the lower-risk option at 2.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLL or ALLW?

Over the 1-year period, ALLW has performed better with a 17.68% return vs -37.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLL or ALLW?

ALLW is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLL or ALLW?

ALLW has the higher dividend yield at 4.41%, compared with 0.00% for GLL.

What is the main difference between GLL and ALLW?

GLL is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while ALLW is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GLL and 0.85% for ALLW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ALLW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs -0.67), 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.