PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XGLS.L vs. GLDA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XGLS.L vs. GLDA.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XGLS.L achieves a 2.92% return, which is significantly lower than GLDA.L's 3.93% return.


XGLS.L

1D
0.61%
1M
-2.45%
YTD
2.92%
6M
5.12%
1Y
30.57%
3Y*
29.95%
5Y*
17.04%
10Y*
11.70%

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)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XGLS.L
Xtrackers Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC
2.92%63.07%24.85%11.63%-1.63%-4.91%8.46%
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 XGLS.L and GLDA.L is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.93

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.81

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2020

0.69

Over the past year, XGLS.L and GLDA.L have become more correlated (0.93) than their long-term average of 0.69, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

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

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

XGLS.L
XGLS.L Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
XGLS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGLS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGLS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
XGLS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGLS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

GLDA.L
GLDA.L Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (XGLS.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.


XGLS.LGLDA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.22

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.28

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.67

1.87

-0.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.36

5.03

-0.67

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

The current XGLS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is comparable to the GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGLS.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XGLS.LGLDA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.23

1.43

-0.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

1.41

-0.42

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.75

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

1.07

-0.71

Drawdowns

XGLS.L vs. GLDA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGLS.L drawdown since its inception was -46.55%, 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 XGLS.L and GLDA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XGLS.LGLDA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.55%

-21.57%

-24.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.19%

-17.90%

-0.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.19%

-17.90%

-0.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.88%

-17.90%

-3.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.99%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-16.29%

-16.00%

-0.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-23.37%

-5.40%

-17.97%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.99%

6.67%

+0.32%

Volatility

XGLS.L vs. GLDA.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (XGLS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.37% compared to Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) at 5.20%. This indicates that XGLS.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XGLS.LGLDA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.37%

5.20%

+1.17%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.81%

20.39%

+1.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.78%

23.46%

+1.32%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.25%

17.65%

-0.40%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.52%

18.02%

-2.50%

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

XGLS.L has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDA.L's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

XGLS.L vs. GLDA.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.93, XGLS.L and GLDA.L 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.

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.

GLDA.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for XGLS.L.

XGLS.L tracks Gold (GBP Hedged), while GLDA.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for XGLS.L and 0.12% for GLDA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XGLS.L and GLDA.L

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