PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
USCA vs. FGDL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USCA achieves a 6.50% return, which is significantly higher than FGDL's -6.20% return.


USCA

1D
1.11%
1M
1.00%
6M
6.45%
YTD
6.50%
1Y
14.90%
3Y*
17.57%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
20.46%

FGDL

1D
-1.15%
1M
-1.37%
6M
-16.26%
YTD
-6.20%
1Y
20.79%
3Y*
27.62%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
21.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$1.02M$929.90K$1.28M
$2.89M$14.00M$5.61M

USCA vs. FGDL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
USCA
Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF
6.50%14.24%27.24%19.92%
FGDL
Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF
-6.20%64.15%27.31%3.79%

Correlation

The correlation between USCA and FGDL is 0.30, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.30

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.15

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2023

0.14

The correlation between USCA and FGDL shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (all time) to 0.30 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

USCA vs. FGDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

USCA
USCA Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
USCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
USCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
USCA Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
USCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
USCA Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank

FGDL
FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.


USCAFGDLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.28

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.17

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.28

0.85

+0.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.70

1.84

+2.87

USCA vs. FGDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USCA Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is comparable to the FGDL Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

USCA vs. FGDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USCA drawdown since its inception was -19.14%, smaller than the maximum FGDL drawdown of -26.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USCA and FGDL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


USCAFGDLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-19.14%

-26.58%

+7.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.25%

-26.58%

+16.33%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.14%

-26.58%

+7.44%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.33%

-25.05%

+23.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.17%

-4.63%

+2.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.78%

12.33%

-9.55%

Volatility

USCA vs. FGDL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF (USCA) is 3.75%, while Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) has a volatility of 6.14%. 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


USCAFGDLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.75%

6.14%

-2.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.14%

23.68%

-13.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.02%

28.25%

-15.23%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.77%

19.40%

-4.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.77%

19.40%

-4.63%

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 1.12%, while FGDL has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM202520242023
FGDL
Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
USCA
Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF
1.12%1.14%1.22%1.15%

Frequently Asked Questions


USCA and FGDL have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FGDL has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to USCA (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USCA dropped -19.14% vs FGDL's -26.58%.

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 27.62% vs 17.57% for USCA. On fees, USCA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, USCA has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. 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 27.62% return vs 17.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

USCA has the higher dividend yield at 1.12%, compared with 0.00% for 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.

USCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs 0.80), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for USCA 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