QGLDX vs. CEF

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

QGLDX (Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class) and CEF (Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust) are both Gold funds. Over the past 10 years, QGLDX returned 8.80%/yr vs 10.54%/yr for CEF. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QGLDX charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for CEF.

Performance

QGLDX vs. CEF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class (QGLDX) and Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QGLDX achieves a -5.10% return, which is significantly higher than CEF's -12.64% return. Over the past 10 years, QGLDX has underperformed CEF with an annualized return of 8.80%, while CEF has yielded a comparatively higher 10.54% annualized return.

QGLDX

• 1D: 1.64%
• 1M: -0.21%
• 6M: -15.33%
• YTD: -5.10%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 25.28%
• 5Y*: 14.66%
• 10Y*: 8.80%
• ALL TIME*: 7.47%

CEF

• 1D: -2.10%
• 1M: -3.19%
• 6M: -19.38%
• YTD: -12.64%
• 1Y: 30.45%
• 3Y*: 29.51%
• 5Y*: 16.50%
• 10Y*: 10.54%
• ALL TIME*: 5.76%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	$23.56M	$24.31M	$29.31M
QGLDX Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

QGLDX vs. CEF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
QGLDX Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class	-5.10%	59.91%	24.52%	10.39%	-4.64%	-6.25%	19.35%	17.03%	-4.07%	11.44%
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	-12.64%	92.76%	24.07%	6.80%	1.07%	-8.32%	31.99%	16.91%	-6.34%	18.78%

Correlation

The correlation between QGLDX and CEF is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.91
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 2014	0.88

The correlation between QGLDX and CEF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QGLDX vs. CEF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QGLDX

QGLDX Risk / Return Rank: 21
QGLDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
QGLDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
QGLDX Omega Ratio Rank: 28
QGLDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
QGLDX Martin Ratio Rank: 14

CEF

CEF Risk / Return Rank: 23
CEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
CEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
CEF Omega Ratio Rank: 30
CEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
CEF Martin Ratio Rank: 15

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QGLDX vs. CEF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class (QGLDX) and Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). 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.

	QGLDX	CEF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.86	0.82	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	1.20	+0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.18	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	0.97	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.99	2.07	-0.08

QGLDX vs. CEF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QGLDX Sharpe Ratio is 0.86, which is comparable to the CEF Sharpe Ratio of 0.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QGLDX and CEF, 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

QGLDX vs. CEF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QGLDX drawdown since its inception was -27.17%, smaller than the maximum CEF drawdown of -62.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QGLDX and CEF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QGLDX	CEF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.17%	-62.29%	+35.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.47%	-34.12%	+7.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.47%	-34.12%	+7.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.47%	-34.12%	+7.65%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.17%	-34.12%	+6.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.01%	-32.43%	+8.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.47%	-27.35%	+15.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.13%	15.94%	-3.81%

Volatility

QGLDX vs. CEF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class (QGLDX) is 6.24%, while Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF) has a volatility of 8.59%. This indicates that QGLDX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QGLDX	CEF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.24%	8.59%	-2.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.42%	35.16%	-11.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.07%	40.14%	-12.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.68%	24.95%	-6.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.62%	22.06%	-5.44%

QGLDX vs. CEF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QGLDX has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than CEF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

QGLDX vs. CEF - Dividend Comparison

QGLDX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 63.85%, while CEF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEF Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.08%	0.07%	0.09%	0.10%
QGLDX Quantified Gold Futures Tracking Fund Investor Class	63.85%	60.49%	28.70%	10.20%	0.00%	0.00%	9.92%	14.32%	1.23%	5.75%	2.08%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QGLDX and CEF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, QGLDX and CEF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QGLDX or CEF?

CEF has higher volatility (8.59%) compared to QGLDX (6.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QGLDX dropped -27.17% vs CEF's -62.29%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QGLDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.86 vs 0.82), 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.