ICOP vs. GLTR
ICOP (iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICOP is a Copper fund tracking the STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ICOP returned 26.30%/yr vs 26.80%/yr for GLTR. Their 0.63 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ICOP charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.
Performance
ICOP vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICOP achieves a 13.30% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's -11.69% return.
ICOP
- 1D
- -1.40%
- 1M
- 1.44%
- 6M
- -1.66%
- YTD
- 13.30%
- 1Y
- 75.25%
- 3Y*
- 26.30%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 28.98%
GLTR
- 1D
- -1.67%
- 1M
- -2.53%
- 6M
- -22.36%
- YTD
- -11.69%
- 1Y
- 28.95%
- 3Y*
- 26.80%
- 5Y*
- 13.53%
- 10Y*
- 9.97%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.70%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $15.88M | $12.93M | $13.80M | |
| $3.24M | $3.32M | $5.52M |
ICOP vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF | 13.30% | 78.01% | 1.10% | 8.08% |
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | -11.69% | 87.25% | 20.63% | 5.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICOP and GLTR is 0.72, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.72 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2023 | 0.63 |
The correlation between ICOP and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
ICOP vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank
ICOP
GLTR
ICOP vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) and abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). 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.
| ICOP | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.18 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.88 | 0.82 | +2.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.34 | 1.65 | +6.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ICOP vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICOP drawdown since its inception was -38.67%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICOP and GLTR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICOP | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.67% | -55.70% | +17.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.13% | -37.87% | +11.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -38.67% | -37.87% | -0.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -37.87% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -37.87% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.92% | -36.34% | +22.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.76% | -28.88% | +17.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.99% | 18.83% | -9.84% |
Volatility
ICOP vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison
iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) has a higher volatility of 12.26% compared to abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) at 7.95%. This indicates that ICOP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICOP | GLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.26% | 7.95% | +4.31% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 35.69% | 34.42% | +1.27% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.68% | 39.52% | +1.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 34.64% | 24.18% | +10.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.64% | 20.80% | +13.84% |
ICOP vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICOP has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
ICOP vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison
ICOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF | 1.79% | 2.08% | 1.87% | 2.15% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ICOP and GLTR have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ICOP has higher volatility (12.26%) compared to GLTR (7.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICOP dropped -38.67% vs GLTR's -55.70%.
On 3-year performance, GLTR leads with 26.80% vs 26.30% for ICOP. On fees, ICOP is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, GLTR has been the lower-risk option at 7.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 26.80% return vs 26.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ICOP is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.
ICOP has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.
ICOP is categorized as Copper, while GLTR is Precious Metals. ICOP tracks STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for ICOP and 0.60% for GLTR.
ICOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 0.79), 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 ICOP and GLTR
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