AUMI vs. GDXJ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

AUMI (Themes Gold Miners ETF) and GDXJ (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF) are both Gold funds - AUMI tracks the Solactive Global Pure Gold Miners Index while GDXJ tracks the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, AUMI returned 49.50% vs 55.23% for GDXJ. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. AUMI charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for GDXJ.

Performance

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) and VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUMI achieves a -14.59% return, which is significantly lower than GDXJ's -13.28% return.

AUMI

• 1D: 2.21%
• 1M: -2.81%
• 6M: -20.10%
• YTD: -14.59%
• 1Y: 49.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 56.27%

GDXJ

• 1D: 3.44%
• 1M: -4.12%
• 6M: -20.48%
• YTD: -13.28%
• 1Y: 55.23%
• 3Y*: 43.15%
• 5Y*: 18.66%
• 10Y*: 8.85%
• ALL TIME*: 1.78%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	$205.67K	$204.64K	$383.88K
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF	$470.71M	$441.62M	$622.38M

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	-14.59%	164.18%	30.61%	10.23%
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF	-13.28%	172.28%	15.67%	8.80%

Correlation

The correlation between AUMI and GDXJ is 0.97 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2023	0.93

The correlation between AUMI and GDXJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AUMI	GDXJ
Basic Materials	99.5%	100.0%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.1%
Communication Services	0.0%	-
Technology	0.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AUMI vs. GDXJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

AUMI

AUMI Risk / Return Rank: 36
AUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
AUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
AUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 39
AUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
AUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 30

GDXJ

GDXJ Risk / Return Rank: 38
GDXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
GDXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GDXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 42
GDXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
GDXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 31

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) and VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AUMI	GDXJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.98	1.03	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.44	1.50	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.20	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.25	1.34	-0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.65	2.83	-0.18

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUMI Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is comparable to the GDXJ Sharpe Ratio of 1.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUMI and GDXJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUMI drawdown since its inception was -39.84%, smaller than the maximum GDXJ drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUMI and GDXJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	AUMI	GDXJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.84%	-88.66%	+48.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.84%	-41.32%	+1.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-41.32%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.79%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-57.77%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.74%	-36.83%	+1.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.80%	-60.25%	+51.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	18.71%	19.56%	-0.85%

Volatility

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) is 12.11%, while VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) has a volatility of 14.46%. This indicates that AUMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AUMI	GDXJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.11%	14.46%	-2.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.23%	42.31%	-4.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.92%	54.05%	-3.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.43%	42.11%	+0.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	42.43%	44.20%	-1.77%

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUMI has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than GDXJ's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

AUMI vs. GDXJ - Dividend Comparison

AUMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than GDXJ's 2.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	1.01%	0.86%	1.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF	2.69%	2.33%	2.61%	0.72%	0.51%	1.78%	1.58%	0.39%	0.45%	0.03%	4.78%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AUMI and GDXJ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, AUMI and GDXJ 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.

Which is riskier, AUMI or GDXJ?

GDXJ has higher volatility (14.46%) compared to AUMI (12.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUMI dropped -39.84% vs GDXJ's -88.66%.

Which ETF is better, AUMI or GDXJ?

On 1-year performance, GDXJ leads with 55.23% vs 49.50% for AUMI. On fees, AUMI is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, AUMI has been the lower-risk option at 12.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AUMI or GDXJ?

Over the 1-year period, GDXJ has performed better with a 55.23% return vs 49.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AUMI or GDXJ?

AUMI is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for GDXJ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AUMI or GDXJ?

GDXJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.69%, compared with 1.01% for AUMI.

What is the main difference between AUMI and GDXJ?

AUMI tracks Solactive Global Pure Gold Miners Index, while GDXJ tracks MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. They also come from different issuers: Themes and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for AUMI and 0.52% for GDXJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.03 vs 0.98), 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.