GLTR vs. CGDV

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. GLTR is passively managed, while CGDV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GLTR returned 29.97%/yr vs 24.15%/yr for CGDV. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

GLTR vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). 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 lower than CGDV's 11.55% 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%

CGDV

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 11.55%
• 6M: 12.50%
• 1Y: 28.33%
• 3Y*: 24.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLTR vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-4.66%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-7.86%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.55%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between GLTR and CGDV is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.24

Return for Risk

GLTR vs. CGDV — 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

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 78
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). 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	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	2.27	-1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.39	3.11	-1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.42	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.17	2.83	-1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.88	13.19	-10.31

GLTR vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLTR and CGDV, 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. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than CGDV's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLTR	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.70%	-21.82%	-33.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.09%	-9.75%	-24.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.09%	-14.28%	-19.81%
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%	-0.98%	-30.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-3.60%	-25.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.86%	2.09%	+11.77%

Volatility

GLTR vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 10.43% compared to Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) at 4.52%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLTR	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.43%	4.52%	+5.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.24%	9.80%	+26.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.40%	12.13%	+26.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.87%	15.57%	+8.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.64%	15.57%	+5.07%

GLTR vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLTR vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CGDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.17%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLTR and CGDV in my portfolio?

GLTR and CGDV have a correlation of 0.29, 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 CGDV?

GLTR has higher volatility (10.43%) compared to CGDV (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, GLTR or CGDV?

On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 29.97% vs 24.15% for CGDV. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGDV has been the lower-risk option at 4.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLTR or CGDV?

Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 29.97% return vs 24.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLTR or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

CGDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between GLTR and CGDV?

GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while CGDV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.04), 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.