USCA vs. FGDL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

USCA (Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF) and FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - USCA is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Climate Action Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FGDL is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, USCA returned 18.72%/yr vs 28.79%/yr for FGDL. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. USCA charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FGDL.

Performance

USCA vs. FGDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF (USCA) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USCA achieves a 3.65% return, which is significantly higher than FGDL's -4.86% return.

USCA

• 1D: -1.13%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 3.65%
• 6M: 2.68%
• 1Y: 15.74%
• 3Y*: 18.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FGDL

• 1D: -1.86%
• 1M: -8.58%
• YTD: -4.86%
• 6M: -8.67%
• 1Y: 21.26%
• 3Y*: 28.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

USCA vs. FGDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
USCA Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF	3.65%	14.24%	27.24%	19.92%
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	-4.86%	64.15%	27.31%	3.79%

Correlation

The correlation between USCA and FGDL is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2023	0.13

The correlation between USCA and FGDL shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

USCA vs. FGDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

USCA

USCA Risk / Return Rank: 36
USCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
USCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
USCA Omega Ratio Rank: 36
USCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
USCA Martin Ratio Rank: 40

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 21
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

USCA vs. FGDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF (USCA) 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.

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.

	USCA	FGDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	0.77	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	1.12	+0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.16	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.54	0.86	+0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.91	2.31	+3.60

USCA vs. FGDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USCA Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is higher than the FGDL Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USCA and FGDL, 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

USCA vs. FGDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USCA drawdown since its inception was -19.14%, smaller than the maximum FGDL drawdown of -24.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USCA and FGDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	USCA	FGDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.14%	-24.73%	+5.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.25%	-24.73%	+14.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.14%	-24.73%	+5.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.97%	-23.98%	+20.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.17%	-4.07%	+1.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	9.24%	-6.57%

Volatility

USCA vs. FGDL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF (USCA) is 4.78%, while Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) has a volatility of 8.47%. This indicates that USCA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FGDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	USCA	FGDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.78%	8.47%	-3.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.87%	24.48%	-14.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.66%	27.83%	-15.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.85%	19.33%	-4.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.85%	19.33%	-4.48%

USCA vs. FGDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

USCA has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than FGDL's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

USCA vs. FGDL - Dividend Comparison

USCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, while FGDL has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
USCA Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF	1.15%	1.14%	1.22%	1.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both USCA and FGDL in my portfolio?

USCA and FGDL have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, USCA or FGDL?

FGDL has higher volatility (8.47%) compared to USCA (4.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USCA dropped -19.14% vs FGDL's -24.73%.

Which ETF is better, USCA or FGDL?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 28.79% vs 18.72% for USCA. On fees, USCA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, USCA has been the lower-risk option at 4.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, USCA or FGDL?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 28.79% return vs 18.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, USCA or FGDL?

USCA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for FGDL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, USCA or FGDL?

USCA has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.00% for FGDL.

What is the main difference between USCA and FGDL?

USCA is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FGDL is Gold. USCA tracks MSCI USA Climate Action Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for USCA and 0.15% for FGDL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 0.77), 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.