GLTR vs. FMAT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLTR returned 13.38%/yr vs 10.36%/yr for FMAT. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FMAT.

Performance

GLTR vs. FMAT - 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 Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a 3.34% return, which is significantly lower than FMAT's 13.39% return. Over the past 10 years, GLTR has outperformed FMAT with an annualized return of 13.38%, while FMAT has yielded a comparatively lower 10.36% annualized return.

GLTR

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: -2.11%
• YTD: 3.34%
• 6M: 12.84%
• 1Y: 54.71%
• 3Y*: 33.17%
• 5Y*: 15.94%
• 10Y*: 13.38%

FMAT

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: 1.16%
• YTD: 13.39%
• 6M: 17.38%
• 1Y: 24.26%
• 3Y*: 12.50%
• 5Y*: 5.92%
• 10Y*: 10.36%

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

GLTR vs. FMAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	3.34%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	29.52%	20.96%	-2.85%	12.94%
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	13.39%	12.11%	0.47%	13.71%	-11.54%	27.45%	19.57%	23.35%	-17.40%	23.51%

Correlation

The correlation between GLTR and FMAT is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.24

Over the past year, GLTR and FMAT have become more correlated (0.47) than their long-term average of 0.24, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

GLTR vs. FMAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 38
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 31

FMAT

FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 37
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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. FMAT - 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 Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). 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	FMAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.47	1.38	+0.09
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.77	1.97	-0.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.24	+0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	1.84	+0.16
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.66	6.07	-1.41
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. FMAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is comparable to the FMAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLTR and FMAT, 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	FMAT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.47	1.38	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68	0.30	+0.38
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66	0.49	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.45	-0.12

Drawdowns

GLTR vs. FMAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than FMAT's maximum drawdown of -41.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and FMAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLTR	FMAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.70%	-41.11%	-14.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.70%	-13.48%	-16.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.70%	-23.17%	-6.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.70%	-25.40%	-4.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-29.70%	-41.11%	+11.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.51%	-3.68%	-21.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.83%	-6.87%	-21.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.76%	4.09%	+8.67%

Volatility

GLTR vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison

Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 9.28% compared to Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) at 6.35%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLTR	FMAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.28%	6.35%	+2.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.36%	13.95%	+21.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.64%	17.66%	+19.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.63%	19.60%	+4.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.50%	21.20%	-0.70%

GLTR vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLTR vs. FMAT - Dividend Comparison

GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	1.41%	1.64%	1.68%	1.71%	2.00%	1.44%	1.73%	1.89%	2.18%	1.53%	1.78%	2.16%
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLTR and FMAT in my portfolio?

GLTR and FMAT have a correlation of 0.47, 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 FMAT?

GLTR has higher volatility (9.28%) compared to FMAT (6.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs FMAT's -41.11%.

Which ETF is better, GLTR or FMAT?

On 10-year performance, GLTR leads with 13.38% vs 10.36% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FMAT has been the lower-risk option at 6.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLTR or FMAT?

Over the 10-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 13.38% return vs 10.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLTR or FMAT?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between GLTR and FMAT?

GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while FMAT is Materials. GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.08% for FMAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 vs 1.38), 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.