Skip to content

BAR vs FGDL

GraniteShares Gold Trust

BARBNYSE Arca

Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF

FGDLBNYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

FGDL −0.02pt a year

BAR0.17%FGDL0.15%

Avg volume · 30D

BAR 12.9×the volume

BAR221KFGDL17.1K

3Y return · a year

FGDL +0.1pt

BAR+25.5%FGDL+25.6%

BAR vs FGDL Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Nov 2, 2026

−1.6%BAR−1.4%FGDL

Oct 31, 2025 to Nov 2, 2026. BAR −1.6%. FGDL −1.4%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.10%20%30%Oct 2025May 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
BAR 0.17%
FGDL 0.15%, better
Fund size
BAR $1.26B
FGDL $406M
1Y total return
BAR −1.6%
FGDL −1.4%, better
Holdings
BAR 1
FGDL 1
Avg volume (30D)
BAR 221K sh, better
FGDL 17.1K sh
NAV per share
BAR $38.50
FGDL $52.06
52W range

ETF.net Grade

BAR: Cost 59, Risk 49, Mission 100, Tradability 30, Holdings not scored, Durability 41. FGDL: Cost 77, Risk 49, Mission 100, Tradability 31, Holdings not scored, Durability 32.
Pillar letters and Scores for BAR, FGDL, with each pillar’s weight
PillarBARFGDL
Cost30% weightB59A77Higher
Mission25% weightA100A100
Risk15% weightC49C49
Tradability15% weightD30D31Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightC41HigherD32

Rank among Physical Gold funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. BAR and FGDL are both graded against the same 10 Physical Gold funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Physical Gold⁠

Category · 10 funds
See all 10 ›

FGDL ranks 4th and BAR 6th of 10 funds in the Physical Gold Category.

  1. Rank 1AGLDMSPDR Gold MiniShares TrustScore 82
  2. Rank 2AIAUMiShares Gold Trust MicroScore 77
  3. Rank 3BSGOLabrdn Physical Gold Shares ETFScore 69
  4. Rank 4BFGDLFranklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETFScore 68
  5. Rank 5BAAAUGoldman Sachs Physical Gold ETFScore 64
  6. Rank 6BBARGraniteShares Gold TrustScore 62
  7. Rank 7BOUNZVanEck Merk Gold ETFScore 58

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

BARBGraniteShares Gold Trust

FGDLBFranklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF

In short

BAR Real bars in a London vault, listed one by one on the sponsor's site every day. BAR landed in 2017 as the boutique fee-fighter among gold trusts: no lending, no derivatives, a 0.17% sponsor fee.

FGDL Gold with a paper trail. FGDL holds only London Good Delivery bars refined since January 1, 2012, the vintage covered by the LBMA's Responsible Gold Guidance, for a 0.15% sponsor fee.

Stated mandate

BAR The Trust seeks to have each Share’s value reflect the value of its gold assets after accrued expenses and liabilities, providing a simple way to invest similarly to gold.

FGDL The Fund seeks to track the price of gold bullion, after deducting expenses. Its assets consist only of gold bullion and cash, if any.

Why people hold it

  • BAR Bullion only: the gold sits in ICBC Standard Bank's London vault, lending of the metal isn't permitted, and the trust can't hold derivatives.graniteshares.comsec.gov
  • You can check the claim: the bar list is published daily, and outside inspector Bureau Veritas visits the vault twice a year, one of those visits at random.graniteshares.comgraniteshares.com 2
  • Plain passive plumbing: mirror the LBMA Gold Price PM less expenses. It has hugged that gold benchmark very tightly.
  • FGDL The mandate is written into the trust: only bars refined on or after January 1, 2012, under LBMA guidance that makes refiners document environmental, anti-laundering and human-rights practices.sec.gov
  • At 0.15%, it undercuts SGOL at 0.17%, the other US physical gold fund built around the same post-2012 bar screen.aberdeeninvestments.com
  • Simple plumbing: a grantor trust holding gold bullion and cash only, bars vaulted with JPMorgan in London, valued against the LBMA Gold Price PM.franklintempleton.com
  • Sits in the upper half of the physical gold group on our review, with a fee close to what the category typically charges.

Worth knowing

  • BAR No income here. Gold pays nothing, and the trust sells a sliver of its bullion to cover expenses, so the ounces behind each share drift down over time.graniteshares.com
  • Cheaper doors to the same metal exist: GLDM and IAUM both undercut BAR's fee, and BAR is only moderately traded next to the category's volume leaders.
  • Tax quirk of the wrapper: under current law, long-term gains on gold held through the trust are taxed as collectibles, at a maximum 28% rate.sec.gov
  • FGDL Thinly traded next to the category's giants, so bid-ask spreads can run wider and larger orders take more care.
  • Bullion pays no income, so there is nothing to distribute. The fund has not paid out, and its result is gold's price less the 0.15% fee.
  • Cheaper bullion exists for buyers who do not need the sourcing screen: IAUM at 0.09% and GLDM at 0.10%.

Full BAR profile⁠

Full FGDL profile⁠

BAR vs FGDL Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

BAR vs FGDL Cost

Overpaying BAR vs FGDL

$409

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • BAR 0.17%

    $3,546

  • FGDL 0.15%

    $3,137

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • BAR 0.17%
  • FGDL 0.15%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$1K$2K$3K$4K051015202530BAR $3,546FGDL $3,137

Year by year

YearBARFGDLOverpaying
10$310$274$36
20$1,211$1,071$140
30$3,546$3,137$409

Expense ratio

  • 0.17%BAR
  • 0.15%FGDL, cheaper
  • Middle half of Physical Gold funds
  • Median 0.17%

FGDL 3rd cheapest of 10 funds

BAR 4th cheapest of 10 funds

BAR vs FGDL Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 2, 2026
Payout (12M)
BAR None
FGDL None

Distribution history

BARAll BAR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

FGDLAll FGDL payments⁠

No distribution history available.

BAR vs FGDL Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
BAR 19.4%, betterFGDL 19.5%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
BAR 1.02FGDL 1.02Same figure. Both funds show the same value, so neither comes out ahead.
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
BAR −28.1%FGDL −28.3%since Jun 2022
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
BAR 0.44FGDL 0.41

BAR and FGDL in the news

Popular comparisons

  • BARBvsGLDMA

    GraniteShares Gold Trust · SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.17% · 0.10%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • FGDLBvsGLDMA

    Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF · SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.15% · 0.10%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • BARBvsIAUMA

    GraniteShares Gold Trust · iShares Gold Trust Micro

    Expense ratio
    0.17% · 0.09%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • FGDLBvsIAUMA

    Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF · iShares Gold Trust Micro

    Expense ratio
    0.15% · 0.09%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • BARBvsSGOLB

    GraniteShares Gold Trust · abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.17% · 0.17%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • FGDLBvsSGOLB

    Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF · abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.15% · 0.17%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.