SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

SPAP.L (Invesco Physical Palladium) and GLDA.L (Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)) are both Precious Metals funds - SPAP.L tracks the Palladium while GLDA.L tracks the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SPAP.L returned -13.39%/yr vs 20.09%/yr for GLDA.L. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SPAP.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GLDA.L.

Performance

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Physical Palladium (SPAP.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SPAP.L achieves a -16.50% return, which is significantly lower than GLDA.L's 3.93% return.

SPAP.L

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: -11.47%
• YTD: -16.50%
• 6M: -9.54%
• 1Y: 33.92%
• 3Y*: -4.77%
• 5Y*: -13.39%
• 10Y*: 9.55%

GLDA.L

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: -1.41%
• YTD: 3.93%
• 6M: 5.34%
• 1Y: 33.65%
• 3Y*: 28.01%
• 5Y*: 20.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
SPAP.L Invesco Physical Palladium	-16.50%	62.74%	-17.91%	-41.14%	5.62%	-19.64%	4.48%
GLDA.L Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)	3.93%	53.56%	28.19%	7.26%	12.68%	-3.12%	-2.69%

Correlation

The correlation between SPAP.L and GLDA.L is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2020	0.30

Over the past year, SPAP.L and GLDA.L have become more correlated (0.52) than their long-term average of 0.30, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

SPAP.L

SPAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 22
SPAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
SPAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
SPAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 24
SPAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
SPAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

GLDA.L

GLDA.L Risk / Return Rank: 39
GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
GLDA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
GLDA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GLDA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
GLDA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Physical Palladium (SPAP.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L). 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.

	SPAP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	1.43	-0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.24	1.86	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.28	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	1.87	-0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.00	5.03	-3.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SPAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPAP.L and GLDA.L, 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

	SPAP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76	1.43	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.32	1.41	-1.73
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	1.07	-0.91

Drawdowns

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPAP.L drawdown since its inception was -70.89%, which is greater than GLDA.L's maximum drawdown of -21.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SPAP.L and GLDA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	SPAP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-70.89%	-21.57%	-49.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-37.19%	-17.90%	-19.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.66%	-17.90%	-22.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-70.89%	-17.90%	-52.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-70.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-57.83%	-16.00%	-41.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.17%	-5.40%	-21.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.88%	6.67%	+10.21%

Volatility

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Physical Palladium (SPAP.L) has a higher volatility of 9.69% compared to Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) at 5.20%. This indicates that SPAP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SPAP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.69%	5.20%	+4.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.67%	20.39%	+16.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.32%	23.46%	+20.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	41.71%	17.65%	+24.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.38%	18.02%	+19.36%

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

SPAP.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDA.L's 0.12% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

SPAP.L vs. GLDA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither SPAP.L nor GLDA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SPAP.L and GLDA.L in my portfolio?

SPAP.L and GLDA.L have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, SPAP.L or GLDA.L?

On fees, GLDA.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, SPAP.L or GLDA.L?

GLDA.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for SPAP.L.

What is the main difference between SPAP.L and GLDA.L?

SPAP.L tracks Palladium, while GLDA.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for SPAP.L and 0.12% for GLDA.L.