GLTR vs. BABO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and BABO (YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while BABO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by YieldMax. GLTR is passively managed, while BABO is actively managed. Over the past year, GLTR returned 38.86% vs -1.50% for BABO. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for BABO.

Performance

GLTR vs. BABO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a -4.66% return, which is significantly higher than BABO's -20.64% return.

GLTR

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -13.34%
• YTD: -4.66%
• 6M: 0.76%
• 1Y: 38.86%
• 3Y*: 29.97%
• 5Y*: 14.04%
• 10Y*: 12.08%

BABO

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: -16.79%
• YTD: -20.64%
• 6M: -24.20%
• 1Y: -1.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLTR vs. BABO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-4.66%	87.25%	8.65%
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF	-20.64%	46.84%	0.65%

Correlation

The correlation between GLTR and BABO is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 8, 2024	0.19

Return for Risk

GLTR vs. BABO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 38
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 25

BABO

BABO Risk / Return Rank: 8
BABO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
BABO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
BABO Omega Ratio Rank: 9
BABO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
BABO Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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.

GLTR vs. BABO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO). 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	BABO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	-0.12	+1.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.39	0.08	+1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.01	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.17	-0.13	+1.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.88	-0.28	+3.16

GLTR vs. BABO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is higher than the BABO Sharpe Ratio of -0.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLTR and BABO, 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. BABO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than BABO's maximum drawdown of -33.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and BABO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLTR	BABO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.70%	-33.33%	-22.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.09%	-33.33%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.27%	-33.33%	+2.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-13.90%	-14.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.86%	15.34%	-1.48%

Volatility

GLTR vs. BABO - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 10.43% compared to YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF (BABO) at 8.72%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BABO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLTR	BABO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.43%	8.72%	+1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.24%	24.44%	+11.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.40%	35.33%	+3.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.87%	36.67%	-12.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.64%	36.67%	-16.03%

GLTR vs. BABO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than BABO's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLTR vs. BABO - Dividend Comparison

GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BABO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 98.48%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BABO YieldMax BABA Option Income Strategy ETF	98.48%	85.50%	20.65%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLTR and BABO in my portfolio?

GLTR and BABO have a correlation of 0.19, 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 BABO?

GLTR has higher volatility (10.43%) compared to BABO (8.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs BABO's -33.33%.

Which ETF is better, GLTR or BABO?

On 1-year performance, GLTR leads with 38.86% vs -1.50% for BABO. On fees, GLTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, BABO has been the lower-risk option at 8.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLTR or BABO?

Over the 1-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 38.86% return vs -1.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLTR or BABO?

GLTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for BABO.

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

BABO has the higher dividend yield at 98.48%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between GLTR and BABO?

GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while BABO is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and YieldMax. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.99% for BABO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs -0.12), 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.