BAR vs SGOL
Graniteshares Gold Trust vs abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF
Which is better, BAR or SGOL?
Each has led over a different period.
BAR led over the full window, SGOL over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BAR | SGOL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.17%Tie | 0.17%Tie |
| AUM | $1.3B | $7.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 2 | 2 |
| YTD Return | -5.44%Best | -5.45% |
| 1Y Return | -1.15% | -1.14%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +28.61% | +28.63%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +17.75% | +17.76%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6%Tie | 15.6%Tie |
| Max Drawdown | -26.3%Tie | -26.3%Tie |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $22,636 | $22,646Best |
| Fund Family | GraniteShares | Aberdeen |
| Category | Commodity | Commodity |
| Style | Gold | Gold |
| Inception | Aug 23, 2017 | Sep 9, 2009 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 31, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.1 years).
BAR vs SGOL growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 9.1 years both funds cover.
BAR vs SGOL Performance
Graniteshares Gold Trust (BAR) is an ETF from GraniteShares and abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF (SGOL) is an ETF from Aberdeen. Over the past year BAR returned -1.15% while SGOL returned -1.14%. Year to date, BAR is down 5.44% versus a loss of 5.45% for SGOL.
Over three years, BAR compounded at +28.61% per year against +28.63% for SGOL; over five years the annualized figures are +17.75% and +17.76% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, BAR has the edge at +13.05% annualized vs +12.92%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BAR and SGOL have been equally volatile, both at 15.6% annualized.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -26.3% for BAR and -26.3% for SGOL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 1.00. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BAR charges 0.17% per year while SGOL charges 0.17%. On a $10,000 position that is $17 vs $17 annually. On income, BAR currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for SGOL.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BAR and SGOL you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BAR or SGOL?
BAR has an expense ratio of 0.17% while SGOL charges 0.17%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, BAR or SGOL?
Over the past year BAR returned -1.15% vs -1.14% for SGOL, so SGOL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), BAR annualized +13.05% vs +12.92% for SGOL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BAR or SGOL?
BAR and SGOL have been equally volatile, both at 15.6% annualized. Worst drawdown: BAR -26.3% vs SGOL -26.3%.
Should I hold both BAR and SGOL?
BAR and SGOL have a monthly-return correlation of 1.00, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BAR or SGOL?
BAR yields 0.00% while SGOL yields 0.00%, so SGOL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SGOL better than BAR?
BAR led over the full window, SGOL over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.