PALL vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) and GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both Precious Metals funds from Aberdeen - PALL tracks the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt) while GLTR tracks the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PALL returned 8.36%/yr vs 13.17%/yr for GLTR. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.

Performance

PALL vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) and Aberdeen Standard 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, PALL achieves a -18.39% return, which is significantly lower than GLTR's 1.47% return. Over the past 10 years, PALL has underperformed GLTR with an annualized return of 8.36%, while GLTR has yielded a comparatively higher 13.17% annualized 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%

GLTR

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: 1.47%
• 6M: 10.73%
• 1Y: 53.06%
• 3Y*: 32.36%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: 13.17%

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

PALL vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	-18.39%	74.07%	-17.38%	-38.77%	-6.28%	-23.26%	25.27%	53.94%	17.23%	55.73%
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	1.47%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	29.52%	20.96%	-2.85%	12.94%

Correlation

The correlation between PALL and GLTR is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2010	0.59

The correlation between PALL and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PALL vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

PALL

PALL Risk / Return Rank: 19
PALL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
PALL Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
PALL Omega Ratio Rank: 21
PALL Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
PALL Martin Ratio Rank: 17

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 36
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

PALL vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) and Aberdeen Standard 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.

	PALL	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	1.42	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	1.73	-0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.29	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.78	1.80	-1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.74	4.13	-2.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PALL vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PALL Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PALL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PALL	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56	1.42	-0.86
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.35	0.65	-1.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22	0.64	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.32	-0.15

Drawdowns

PALL vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PALL drawdown since its inception was -73.63%, which is greater than GLTR's maximum drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALL and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PALL	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.63%	-55.70%	-17.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.18%	-29.70%	-6.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.47%	-29.70%	-10.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.63%	-29.70%	-43.93%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.63%	-29.70%	-43.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-59.78%	-26.86%	-32.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.81%	-28.83%	+2.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.25%	12.88%	+3.37%

Volatility

PALL vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) has a higher volatility of 10.54% compared to Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) at 9.13%. This indicates that PALL'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.

Volatility by Period

	PALL	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.54%	9.13%	+1.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.87%	35.41%	+6.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.24%	37.58%	+12.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.46%	23.63%	+18.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.91%	20.50%	+17.41%

PALL vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both PALL and GLTR have an expense ratio of 0.60%.

Dividends

PALL vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PALL nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PALL and GLTR in my portfolio?

PALL and GLTR have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PALL or GLTR?

PALL has higher volatility (10.54%) compared to GLTR (9.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALL dropped -73.63% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, PALL or GLTR?

On 10-year performance, GLTR leads with 13.17% vs 8.36% for PALL. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, GLTR has been the lower-risk option at 9.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PALL or GLTR?

Over the 10-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 13.17% return vs 8.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PALL or GLTR?

PALL and GLTR have the same expense ratio: 0.60% per year.

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

PALL and GLTR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PALL and GLTR?

PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 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.