GLTR vs. AFSC
GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen. GLTR is passively managed, while AFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, GLTR returned 53.06% vs 27.01% for AFSC. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.
Performance
GLTR vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a 1.47% return, which is significantly lower than AFSC's 16.58% return.
GLTR
- 1D
- -1.81%
- 1M
- -1.45%
- YTD
- 1.47%
- 6M
- 10.73%
- 1Y
- 53.06%
- 3Y*
- 32.36%
- 5Y*
- 15.32%
- 10Y*
- 13.17%
AFSC
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 1.96%
- YTD
- 16.58%
- 6M
- 13.48%
- 1Y
- 27.01%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GLTR vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | 1.47% | 67.23% |
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF | 16.58% | 2.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLTR and AFSC is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025 | 0.12 |
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
GLTR vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank
GLTR
AFSC
GLTR vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). 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.
| GLTR | AFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.38 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.25 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.80 | 2.64 | -0.84 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.13 | 9.96 | -5.83 |
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
| GLTR | AFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.42 | 1.46 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.64 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.32 | 0.67 | -0.34 |
Drawdowns
GLTR vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and AFSC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLTR | AFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.70% | -21.68% | -34.02% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.70% | -10.29% | -19.41% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -29.70% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.70% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -29.70% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.86% | -1.79% | -25.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.83% | -4.15% | -24.68% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.88% | 2.72% | +10.16% |
Volatility
GLTR vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison
Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 9.13% compared to abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) at 5.49%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLTR | AFSC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.13% | 5.49% | +3.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 35.41% | 13.99% | +21.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 37.58% | 18.59% | +18.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.63% | 22.57% | +1.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.50% | 22.57% | -2.07% |
GLTR vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
GLTR vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison
GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF | 0.07% | 0.08% |
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GLTR and AFSC have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLTR has higher volatility (9.13%) compared to AFSC (5.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs AFSC's -21.68%.
On 1-year performance, GLTR leads with 53.06% vs 27.01% for AFSC. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 53.06% return vs 27.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.
AFSC has the higher dividend yield at 0.07%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.
GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while AFSC is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.65% for AFSC.
AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.46 vs 1.42), 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 GLTR and AFSC
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