GLTR vs. FNDX
GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and FNDX (Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while FNDX is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity US Large Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLTR returned 12.08%/yr vs 14.45%/yr for FNDX. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDX.
Performance
GLTR vs. FNDX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a -4.66% return, which is significantly lower than FNDX's 15.49% return. Over the past 10 years, GLTR has underperformed FNDX with an annualized return of 12.08%, while FNDX has yielded a comparatively higher 14.45% annualized return.
GLTR
- 1D
- 0.30%
- 1M
- -9.08%
- YTD
- -4.66%
- 6M
- 0.76%
- 1Y
- 38.86%
- 3Y*
- 29.97%
- 5Y*
- 14.04%
- 10Y*
- 12.08%
FNDX
- 1D
- 0.90%
- 1M
- 3.30%
- YTD
- 15.49%
- 6M
- 14.86%
- 1Y
- 32.83%
- 3Y*
- 20.28%
- 5Y*
- 13.11%
- 10Y*
- 14.45%
GLTR vs. FNDX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | -4.66% | 87.25% | 20.63% | 2.01% | -0.25% | -9.60% | 29.52% | 20.96% | -2.85% | 12.94% |
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF | 15.49% | 16.94% | 16.77% | 18.23% | -6.92% | 31.73% | 9.12% | 28.65% | -7.30% | 17.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLTR and FNDX is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2013 | 0.13 |
The correlation between GLTR and FNDX shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GLTR vs. FNDX — Risk / Return Rank
GLTR
FNDX
GLTR vs. FNDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX). 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 | FNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.99 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.83 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.56 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.17 | 5.23 | -4.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.88 | 20.31 | -17.43 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GLTR vs. FNDX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than FNDX's maximum drawdown of -37.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and FNDX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLTR | FNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.70% | -37.72% | -17.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -34.09% | -6.06% | -28.03% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -34.09% | -16.30% | -17.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -34.09% | -19.06% | -15.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.09% | -37.72% | +3.63% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.27% | 0.00% | -31.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.82% | -3.55% | -25.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.86% | 1.56% | +12.30% |
Volatility
GLTR vs. FNDX - Volatility Comparison
abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 10.43% compared to Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX) at 3.18%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLTR | FNDX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.43% | 3.18% | +7.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 36.24% | 7.58% | +28.66% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 38.40% | 10.45% | +27.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.87% | 15.21% | +8.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.64% | 17.51% | +3.13% |
GLTR vs. FNDX - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDX's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
GLTR vs. FNDX - Dividend Comparison
GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FNDX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF | 1.44% | 1.63% | 1.76% | 1.82% | 2.07% | 1.64% | 2.29% | 2.23% | 2.40% | 1.86% | 2.01% | 2.01% |
GLTR abrdn 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
GLTR and FNDX have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLTR has higher volatility (10.43%) compared to FNDX (3.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs FNDX's -37.72%.
On 10-year performance, FNDX leads with 14.45% vs 12.08% for GLTR. On fees, FNDX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FNDX has been the lower-risk option at 3.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, FNDX has performed better with a 14.45% return vs 12.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FNDX is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.
FNDX has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.
GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while FNDX is Large Cap Value Equities. GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while FNDX tracks RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity US Large Index. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.25% for FNDX.
FNDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 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.
Find the right allocation for GLTR and FNDX
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer