GLL vs. LENS
GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) and LENS (Sarmaya Thematic ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%), while LENS is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. GLL is passively managed, while LENS is actively managed. Over the past year, GLL returned -39.14% vs 48.47% for LENS. Their -0.79 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GLL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for LENS.
Performance
GLL vs. LENS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLL achieves a 1.34% return, which is significantly lower than LENS's 4.83% return.
GLL
- 1D
- 3.15%
- 1M
- 3.39%
- 6M
- 33.97%
- YTD
- 1.34%
- 1Y
- -39.14%
- 3Y*
- -38.51%
- 5Y*
- -27.47%
- 10Y*
- -20.49%
- ALL TIME*
- -21.77%
LENS
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 3.09%
- 6M
- -9.06%
- YTD
- 4.83%
- 1Y
- 48.47%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 39.04%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $38.26M | $37.47M | $59.93M | |
| $447.09K | $425.48K | $464.75K |
GLL vs. LENS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold | 1.34% | -58.88% |
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF | 4.83% | 56.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLL and LENS is -0.81, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.81 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2025 | -0.79 |
The correlation between GLL and LENS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.81 to -0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
GLL vs. LENS — Risk / Return Rank
GLL
LENS
GLL vs. LENS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) and Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS). 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 | LENS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.50 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.88 | 1.31 | -0.43 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.65 | 2.00 | -2.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.94 | 4.72 | -5.67 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GLL vs. LENS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLL drawdown since its inception was -99.24%, which is greater than LENS's maximum drawdown of -24.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLL and LENS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLL | LENS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.24% | -24.55% | -74.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -64.23% | -24.55% | -39.68% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -98.74% | -20.11% | -78.63% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -85.23% | -5.52% | -79.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 44.60% | 10.38% | +34.22% |
Volatility
GLL vs. LENS - Volatility Comparison
ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a higher volatility of 12.63% compared to Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) at 5.66%. This indicates that GLL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LENS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLL | LENS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.63% | 5.66% | +6.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 45.01% | 22.09% | +22.92% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 55.39% | 28.06% | +27.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 36.88% | 25.56% | +11.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.48% | 25.56% | +6.92% |
GLL vs. LENS - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than LENS's 0.79% expense ratio.
Dividends
GLL vs. LENS - Dividend Comparison
GLL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LENS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF | 1.53% | 1.60% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GLL and LENS have a correlation of -0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLL has higher volatility (12.63%) compared to LENS (5.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLL dropped -99.24% vs LENS's -24.55%.
On 1-year performance, LENS leads with 48.47% vs -39.14% for GLL. On fees, LENS is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, LENS has been the lower-risk option at 5.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, LENS has performed better with a 48.47% return vs -39.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LENS is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLL.
LENS has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.00% for GLL.
GLL is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while LENS is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GLL and 0.79% for LENS.
LENS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs -0.75), 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.
Find the right allocation for GLL and LENS
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