DFIV vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

DFIV (Dimensional International Value ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - DFIV is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. DFIV is actively managed, while GLDM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, DFIV returned 23.03%/yr vs 30.08%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DFIV charges 0.27%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

DFIV vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) 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, DFIV achieves a 10.17% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 0.30% return.

DFIV

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: -0.58%
• YTD: 10.17%
• 6M: 14.07%
• 1Y: 32.57%
• 3Y*: 23.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLDM

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -8.41%
• YTD: 0.30%
• 6M: 3.19%
• 1Y: 30.55%
• 3Y*: 30.08%
• 5Y*: 17.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

DFIV vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	10.17%	45.36%	7.26%	17.75%	-3.70%	0.08%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.30%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	1.91%

Correlation

The correlation between DFIV and GLDM is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2021	0.32

DFIV vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFIV	GLDM
Financial Services	32.4%	-
Energy	16.4%	-
Basic Materials	10.9%	100.0%
Industrials	9.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	-
Healthcare	4.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	-
Communication Services	4.2%	-
Technology	2.8%	-
Utilities	2.5%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

DFIV vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFIV

DFIV Risk / Return Rank: 78
DFIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DFIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
DFIV Omega Ratio Rank: 79
DFIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
DFIV Martin Ratio Rank: 76

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 34
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

DFIV vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) 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.

	DFIV	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	1.15	+1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	1.54	+1.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.23	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	1.53	+1.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.05	3.85	+9.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFIV vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFIV Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFIV 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

	DFIV	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.36	1.15	+1.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.00	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.99	-0.08

Drawdowns

DFIV vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFIV drawdown since its inception was -25.42%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFIV and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFIV	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.42%	-21.63%	-3.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.66%	-20.00%	+10.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.72%	-20.00%	+5.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.23%	-19.80%	+17.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.47%	-6.24%	+1.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.50%	7.96%	-5.46%

Volatility

DFIV vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) is 3.83%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.65%. This indicates that DFIV 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

	DFIV	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.83%	5.65%	-1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.26%	23.31%	-12.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.91%	26.65%	-12.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.65%	17.98%	-1.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.65%	16.89%	-0.24%

DFIV vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFIV has a 0.27% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

DFIV vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

DFIV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.59%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	2.59%	2.92%	3.88%	3.93%	3.84%	2.30%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFIV and GLDM in my portfolio?

DFIV and GLDM have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DFIV or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to DFIV (3.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFIV dropped -25.42% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, DFIV or GLDM?

On 3-year performance, GLDM leads with 30.08% vs 23.03% for DFIV. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, DFIV has been the lower-risk option at 3.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFIV or GLDM?

Over the 3-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 30.08% return vs 23.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFIV or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.27% for DFIV.

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

DFIV has the higher dividend yield at 2.59%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between DFIV and GLDM?

DFIV is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while GLDM is Gold. They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.27% for DFIV and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.15), 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.