PALL vs. FGDL
PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) and FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) are both Precious Metals funds - PALL tracks the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt) while FGDL tracks the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PALL returned -3.26%/yr vs 31.32%/yr for FGDL. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PALL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FGDL.
Performance
PALL vs. FGDL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PALL achieves a -18.39% return, which is significantly lower than FGDL's 2.43% return.
PALL
- 1D
- -4.89%
- 1M
- -11.74%
- YTD
- -18.39%
- 6M
- -11.90%
- 1Y
- 28.17%
- 3Y*
- -3.26%
- 5Y*
- -14.89%
- 10Y*
- 8.36%
FGDL
- 1D
- -1.09%
- 1M
- -1.94%
- YTD
- 2.43%
- 6M
- 4.89%
- 1Y
- 31.70%
- 3Y*
- 31.32%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PALL vs. FGDL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF | -18.39% | 74.07% | -17.38% | -38.77% | -7.55% |
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF | 2.43% | 64.15% | 27.31% | 12.92% | 0.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between PALL and FGDL is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.53 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2022 | 0.46 |
The correlation between PALL and FGDL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.53 - 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
PALL vs. FGDL — Risk / Return Rank
PALL
FGDL
PALL vs. FGDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). 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.
| PALL | FGDL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.63 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.53 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 1.24 | -0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.78 | 1.66 | -0.87 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.74 | 4.03 | -2.29 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PALL | FGDL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.56 | 1.19 | -0.63 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.35 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.22 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.18 | 1.35 | -1.17 |
Drawdowns
PALL vs. FGDL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PALL drawdown since its inception was -73.63%, which is greater than FGDL's maximum drawdown of -19.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALL and FGDL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PALL | FGDL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.63% | -19.23% | -54.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.18% | -19.23% | -16.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -40.47% | -19.23% | -21.24% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -73.63% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.63% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -59.78% | -18.16% | -41.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.81% | -3.83% | -22.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.25% | 7.88% | +8.37% |
Volatility
PALL vs. FGDL - Volatility Comparison
Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) has a higher volatility of 10.54% compared to Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) at 5.61%. This indicates that PALL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FGDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PALL | FGDL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.54% | 5.61% | +4.93% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 41.87% | 23.18% | +18.69% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 50.24% | 26.78% | +23.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 42.46% | 19.03% | +23.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.91% | 19.03% | +18.88% |
PALL vs. FGDL - Expense Ratio Comparison
PALL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FGDL's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
PALL vs. FGDL - Dividend Comparison
Neither PALL nor FGDL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
PALL and FGDL have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PALL has higher volatility (10.54%) compared to FGDL (5.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALL dropped -73.63% vs FGDL's -19.23%.
On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 31.32% vs -3.26% for PALL. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FGDL has been the lower-risk option at 5.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 31.32% return vs -3.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PALL.
PALL and FGDL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALL and 0.15% for FGDL.
FGDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs 0.56), 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 PALL and FGDL
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