JAAA vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

JAAA (Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JAAA is a CLO fund actively managed by Janus Henderson, while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. JAAA is actively managed, while GLTR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, JAAA returned 4.76%/yr vs 14.04%/yr for GLTR. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JAAA charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

JAAA vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF (JAAA) and abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JAAA achieves a 1.99% return, which is significantly higher than GLTR's -4.66% return.

JAAA

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 1.99%
• 6M: 2.49%
• 1Y: 5.01%
• 3Y*: 6.67%
• 5Y*: 4.76%
• 10Y*: —

GLTR

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -13.34%
• YTD: -4.66%
• 6M: 0.76%
• 1Y: 38.86%
• 3Y*: 29.97%
• 5Y*: 14.04%
• 10Y*: 12.08%

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

JAAA vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
JAAA Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF	1.99%	5.16%	7.43%	8.59%	0.49%	1.39%	0.76%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-4.66%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	3.98%

Correlation

The correlation between JAAA and GLTR is 0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.01
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 19, 2020	0.05

Return for Risk

JAAA vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

JAAA

JAAA Risk / Return Rank: 98
JAAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
JAAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
JAAA Omega Ratio Rank: 99
JAAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
JAAA Martin Ratio Rank: 98

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 38
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

JAAA vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF (JAAA) 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.

	JAAA	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	6.03	1.04	+4.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	10.06	1.39	+8.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.72	1.22	+1.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	12.91	1.17	+11.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	69.57	2.88	+66.70

JAAA vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JAAA Sharpe Ratio is 6.03, which is higher than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JAAA and GLTR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

JAAA vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JAAA drawdown since its inception was -2.64%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JAAA and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	JAAA	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.64%	-55.70%	+53.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.39%	-34.09%	+33.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.46%	-34.09%	+32.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-2.64%	-34.09%	+31.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-31.27%	+31.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.25%	-28.82%	+28.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.07%	13.86%	-13.79%

Volatility

JAAA vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF (JAAA) is 0.12%, while abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a volatility of 10.43%. This indicates that JAAA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JAAA	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.12%	10.43%	-10.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.63%	36.24%	-35.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83%	38.40%	-37.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.67%	23.87%	-22.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.64%	20.64%	-19.00%

JAAA vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

JAAA has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

JAAA vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

JAAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.99%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
JAAA Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF	4.99%	5.30%	6.35%	6.11%	2.74%	1.21%	0.26%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JAAA and GLTR in my portfolio?

JAAA and GLTR have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JAAA or GLTR?

GLTR has higher volatility (10.43%) compared to JAAA (0.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JAAA dropped -2.64% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, JAAA or GLTR?

On 5-year performance, GLTR leads with 14.04% vs 4.76% for JAAA. On fees, JAAA is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, JAAA has been the lower-risk option at 0.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JAAA or GLTR?

Over the 5-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 14.04% return vs 4.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JAAA or GLTR?

JAAA is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

JAAA has the higher dividend yield at 4.99%, compared with 0.00% for GLTR.

What is the main difference between JAAA and GLTR?

JAAA is categorized as CLO, while GLTR is Precious Metals. They also come from different issuers: Janus Henderson and abrdn. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for JAAA and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JAAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.03 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.