ALLW vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 8, 2026

ALLW (State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - ALLW is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by State Street, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. ALLW is actively managed, while GLDM is passively managed. Over the past year, ALLW returned 20.47% vs 30.23% for GLDM. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ALLW charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

ALLW vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ALLW achieves a 6.58% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 0.06% return.

ALLW

• 1D: -2.43%
• 1M: -3.08%
• YTD: 6.58%
• 6M: 6.23%
• 1Y: 20.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLDM

• 1D: -3.67%
• 1M: -8.63%
• YTD: 0.06%
• 6M: 2.68%
• 1Y: 30.23%
• 3Y*: 29.91%
• 5Y*: 17.81%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ALLW vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	6.58%	15.04%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.06%	48.16%

Correlation

The correlation between ALLW and GLDM is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2025	0.58

The correlation between ALLW and GLDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

ALLW vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ALLW	GLDM
Technology	26.3%	-
Financial Services	15.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	-
Communication Services	9.7%	-
Industrials	9.2%	-
Healthcare	8.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	-
Energy	4.9%	-
Basic Materials	4.6%	100.0%
Utilities	2.8%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

ALLW vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 58
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 57
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 65

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 33
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

ALLW vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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.

	ALLW	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	1.07	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.49	1.45	+1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.22	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	1.43	+1.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.70	3.63	+8.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ALLW vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALLW Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALLW and GLDM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ALLW	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.87	1.07	+0.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.99	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.40	0.99	+0.41

Drawdowns

ALLW vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALLW drawdown since its inception was -8.78%, smaller than the maximum GLDM drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALLW and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALLW	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.78%	-21.63%	+12.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-20.00%	+12.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.00%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.17%	-20.00%	+16.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.20%	-6.23%	+5.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	7.86%	-6.15%

Volatility

ALLW vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) is 3.99%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.65%. This indicates that ALLW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ALLW	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.99%	5.65%	-1.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.06%	23.31%	-14.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.76%	26.65%	-15.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.70%	17.97%	-5.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.70%	16.90%	-4.20%

ALLW vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ALLW has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

ALLW vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

ALLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.39%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.39%	4.67%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ALLW and GLDM in my portfolio?

ALLW and GLDM have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ALLW or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to ALLW (3.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ALLW dropped -8.78% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, ALLW or GLDM?

On 1-year performance, GLDM leads with 30.23% vs 20.47% for ALLW. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, ALLW has been the lower-risk option at 3.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ALLW or GLDM?

Over the 1-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 30.23% return vs 20.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ALLW or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ALLW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ALLW or GLDM?

ALLW has the higher dividend yield at 4.39%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between ALLW and GLDM?

ALLW is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while GLDM is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ALLW and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ALLW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.07), 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.