GLTR vs. AFSC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GLTR (abrdn 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 28.95% vs 34.73% for AFSC. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

GLTR vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a -11.69% return, which is significantly lower than AFSC's 25.20% return.

GLTR

• 1D: -1.67%
• 1M: -2.53%
• 6M: -22.36%
• YTD: -11.69%
• 1Y: 28.95%
• 3Y*: 26.80%
• 5Y*: 13.53%
• 10Y*: 9.97%
• ALL TIME*: 5.70%

AFSC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: -0.76%
• 6M: 20.07%
• YTD: 25.20%
• 1Y: 34.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.69%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	$6.77K	$11.55K	$12.82K
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	$15.88M	$12.93M	$13.80M

GLTR vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-11.69%	70.02%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	25.20%	2.33%

Correlation

The correlation between GLTR and AFSC is 0.24, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.15

Return for Risk

GLTR vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 37
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 23

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 79
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 70
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GLTR vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn 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.

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.

	GLTR	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.79	1.78	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.15	2.56	-1.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.30	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.82	3.29	-2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.65	12.03	-10.38

GLTR vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLTR Sharpe Ratio is 0.79, which is lower than the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLTR and AFSC, 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

GLTR vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLTR	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.70%	-21.93%	-33.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-37.87%	-10.29%	-27.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.87%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-36.34%	-3.03%	-33.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.88%	-4.01%	-24.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	18.83%	2.81%	+16.02%

Volatility

GLTR vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 7.95% compared to abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) at 4.60%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	GLTR	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.95%	4.60%	+3.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.42%	14.54%	+19.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.52%	19.13%	+20.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.18%	22.09%	+2.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.80%	22.09%	-1.29%

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 0.06%.

Position	TTM	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLTR and AFSC in my portfolio?

GLTR and AFSC have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLTR or AFSC?

GLTR has higher volatility (7.95%) compared to AFSC (4.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs AFSC's -21.93%.

Which ETF is better, GLTR or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, AFSC leads with 34.73% vs 28.95% for GLTR. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 4.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLTR or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, AFSC has performed better with a 34.73% return vs 28.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLTR or AFSC?

GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLTR or AFSC?

AFSC has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between GLTR and AFSC?

GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while AFSC is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 0.79), 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.