GLTR vs. FMAT
Compare and contrast key facts about Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT).
GLTR and FMAT are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GLTR is a passively managed fund by Abrdn Plc that tracks the performance of the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. It was launched on Oct 22, 2010. FMAT is a passively managed fund by Fidelity that tracks the performance of the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. It was launched on Oct 21, 2013. Both GLTR and FMAT are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: GLTR or FMAT.
Key characteristics
| GLTR | FMAT | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 22.56% | 10.28% |
| 1Y Return | 30.77% | 24.57% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 5.76% | 3.61% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 8.95% | 11.63% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 6.13% | 8.72% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.70 | 1.68 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.32 | 2.35 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.29 | 1.29 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.18 | 1.94 |
| Martin Ratio | 9.04 | 8.15 |
| Ulcer Index | 3.51% | 2.99% |
| Daily Std Dev | 18.69% | 14.51% |
| Max Drawdown | -55.70% | -41.11% |
| Current Drawdown | -8.39% | -3.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLTR and FMAT is 0.22, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
GLTR vs. FMAT - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a 22.56% return, which is significantly higher than FMAT's 10.28% return. Over the past 10 years, GLTR has underperformed FMAT with an annualized return of 6.13%, while FMAT has yielded a comparatively higher 8.72% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GLTR vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GLTR vs. FMAT - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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.
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 1.54%.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 1.54% | 1.71% | 2.00% | 1.44% | 1.73% | 1.89% | 2.18% | 1.53% | 1.78% | 2.16% | 1.65% | 0.39% |
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. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GLTR vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison
Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 6.59% compared to Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) at 4.03%. 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.