GLTR vs. FGDL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) are both Precious Metals funds - GLTR tracks the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index while FGDL tracks the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GLTR returned 32.36%/yr vs 31.32%/yr for FGDL. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FGDL.

Performance

GLTR vs. FGDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a 1.47% return, which is significantly lower than FGDL's 2.43% 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%

FGDL

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 2.43%
• 6M: 4.89%
• 1Y: 31.70%
• 3Y*: 31.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLTR vs. FGDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	1.47%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	4.57%
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	2.43%	64.15%	27.31%	12.92%	0.91%

Correlation

The correlation between GLTR and FGDL is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2022	0.91

The correlation between GLTR and FGDL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GLTR vs. FGDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 36
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 28

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 31
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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. FGDL - 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 Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). 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	FGDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	1.19	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	1.57	+0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.24	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.80	1.66	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.13	4.03	+0.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLTR vs. FGDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is comparable to the FGDL Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLTR and FGDL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLTR	FGDL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.42	1.19	+0.23
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	1.35	-1.03

Drawdowns

GLTR vs. FGDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than FGDL's maximum drawdown of -19.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and FGDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLTR	FGDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.70%	-19.23%	-36.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.70%	-19.23%	-10.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.70%	-19.23%	-10.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.70%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-29.70%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.86%	-18.16%	-8.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.83%	-3.83%	-25.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.88%	7.88%	+5.00%

Volatility

GLTR vs. FGDL - Volatility Comparison

Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 9.13% compared to Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) at 5.61%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FGDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLTR	FGDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.13%	5.61%	+3.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.41%	23.18%	+12.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.58%	26.78%	+10.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.63%	19.03%	+4.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.50%	19.03%	+1.47%

GLTR vs. FGDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FGDL's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLTR vs. FGDL - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLTR nor FGDL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLTR and FGDL in my portfolio?

GLTR and FGDL have a correlation of 0.88, 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 FGDL?

GLTR has higher volatility (9.13%) compared to FGDL (5.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs FGDL's -19.23%.

Which ETF is better, GLTR or FGDL?

On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 32.36% vs 31.32% for FGDL. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FGDL has been the lower-risk option at 5.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLTR or FGDL?

Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 32.36% return vs 31.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLTR or FGDL?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

GLTR and FGDL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GLTR and FGDL?

GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.15% for FGDL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 vs 1.19), 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.