Skip to content

FGDL vs SGOL

Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF

FGDLBNYSE Arca

abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF

SGOLBNYSE Arca

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Expense ratio

FGDL −0.02pt a year

FGDL 0.15%SGOL 0.17%

Avg volume · 30D

SGOL 136.7×the volume

FGDL 18.4KSGOL 2.52M

3Y return · a year

FGDL +0.1pt

FGDL +29.1%SGOL +29.0%

FGDL vs SGOL Performance

Oct 13, 2025 – Oct 13, 2026

+0.8%FGDL+1.1%SGOL

Oct 13, 2025 to Oct 13, 2026. FGDL +0.8%. SGOL +1.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.10%20%30%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
FGDL 0.15%, better
SGOL 0.17%
Fund size
FGDL $433M
SGOL $7.18B
1Y total return
FGDL +0.8%
SGOL +1.1%, better
Holdings
FGDL 1
SGOL 1
Avg volume (30D)
FGDL 18.4K sh
SGOL 2.52M sh, better
NAV per share
FGDL $55.48
SGOL $39.84
52W range

ETF.net Grade

FGDL: Cost 77, Risk 49, Mission 100, Tradability 23, Holdings not scored, Durability 32. SGOL: Cost 59, Risk 49, Mission 100, Tradability 43, Holdings not scored, Durability 62.
Pillar letters and Scores for FGDL, SGOL, with each pillar’s weight
PillarFGDLSGOL
Cost30% weightA77HigherB59
Mission25% weightA100A100
Risk15% weightC49C49
Tradability15% weightF23C43Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightD32B62Higher

Rank among Physical Gold funds

Same Category. FGDL and SGOL 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 3rd and SGOL 4th of 10 funds in the Physical Gold Category.

  1. Rank 1AGLDMSPDR Gold MiniShares TrustScore 81
  2. Rank 2AIAUMiShares Gold Trust MicroScore 77
  3. Rank 3BFGDLFranklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETFScore 67
  4. Rank 4BSGOLabrdn Physical Gold Shares ETFScore 66
  5. Rank 5BAAAUGoldman Sachs Physical Gold ETFScore 65

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

FGDLBFranklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF

SGOLBabrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF

In short

FGDL Gold in a vault, with two twists: the bars come with Franklin's responsible-sourcing label, and the fund charges nothing to hold them. Assets are bullion and cash, full stop.

SGOL A 2009-vintage trust that owns actual gold bars and does exactly one job: track bullion's price after a 0.17% fee. Middle of the pack on cost, front of the pack on doing what the prospectus says.

Stated mandate

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.

SGOL The Trust seeks to track the price of physical gold bullion, after deducting its expenses.

Why people hold it

  • FGDL A 0.00% expense ratio in a cohort whose median is 0.17%. Even the cheap giants charge something (GLDM 0.10%, IAUM 0.09%, GLD 0.40%).
  • Simple plumbing: a grantor trust that holds gold bullion and cash and tracks the metal's price after expenses. No futures, no swaps, no miners.
  • The responsible-sourcing standard is the pitch in a group where every fund owns the same metal, and Franklin spells it out in the trust's own filings.
  • Does what it says: mandate, wrapper and holdings all line up, and it sits in the upper half of the physical gold cohort.
  • SGOL Plain plumbing: a grantor trust holding physical bullion, with one job written into its own documents, to track the price of gold after deducting expenses.
  • Tracks the metal about as closely as the wrapper allows, one of the cleanest mandate implementations among physical gold funds.
  • Trading since 2009, through several full gold cycles, and now a multi-billion-dollar fund that changes hands actively.

Worth knowing

  • FGDL Thinly traded next to the category's heavyweights, which can mean wider bid/ask spreads on the way in and out.
  • Bullion pays no income, and the fund makes no distributions. The gold price, less costs, is the whole story.
  • Launched in 2022 and far smaller than the decade-old gold trusts, so the track record is short by cohort standards.
  • SGOL Cost sits at the category median: 0.17% a year, while IAUM (0.09%) and GLDM (0.10%) charge less to hold the same metal.
  • Bullion throws off no income. This is a price-of-gold holding, not a cash-flow one, and the fee comes out of trust assets.
  • One metal, no diversification. The shares go where gold goes, including the long flat stretches and sharp drawdowns.

Full FGDL profile⁠

Full SGOL profile⁠

FGDL vs SGOL Holdings

Holdings as of Oct 8, 2026

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Only FGDL
1
of 1
In both
0
holdings
Only SGOL
1
of 1

Holdings side by side

Top 10 holdings by combined weight
HoldingFGDLSGOL
Gold Oz.Gold Oz.100.02%Not held
Physical GoldPhysical GoldNot held100.00%

All 2 FGDL holdings⁠All SGOL holdings⁠

FGDL vs SGOL Cost

Expense ratio

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

2 of 10 Physical Gold funds charge less than FGDL

3 of 10 charge less than SGOL

$409less in fees with FGDL over 30 years, on $10,000 invested

$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000Start10 years20 years30 years

Assumes $10,000 invested once and 7% growth a year before fees.

FGDL vs SGOL Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 13, 2026
Payout (12M)
FGDL: None
SGOL: None

Distribution history

FGDLAll FGDL payments⁠

No distribution history available.

SGOLAll SGOL payments⁠

No distribution history available.

FGDL vs SGOL Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
FGDL 19.1%SGOL 18.9%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
FGDL 1.28SGOL 1.29, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
FGDL −26.6%since Jun 2022SGOL −26.3%, better
Market sensitivityBeta, 3 years
FGDL 0.41SGOL 0.40

FGDL and SGOL in the news

Popular comparisons