PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
DZZ vs. GLDM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

DZZ vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DZZ achieves a -50.78% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's 3.87% return.


DZZ

1D
-4.79%
1M
-19.92%
YTD
-50.78%
6M
-42.90%
1Y
3.85%
3Y*
-8.41%
5Y*
-5.74%
10Y*
-10.94%

GLDM

1D
0.84%
1M
-1.62%
YTD
3.87%
6M
6.41%
1Y
32.70%
3Y*
31.59%
5Y*
18.69%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DZZ vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
DZZ
DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes
-50.78%132.78%-35.06%-8.14%2.79%0.56%-37.13%-26.64%-1.02%
GLDM
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
3.87%64.20%27.08%13.04%-0.47%-4.01%25.10%18.10%1.84%

Correlation

The correlation between DZZ and GLDM is -0.47, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.47

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.45

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018

-0.65

The correlation between DZZ and GLDM shifts across timeframes, from -0.65 (all time) to -0.45 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

DZZ vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DZZ
DZZ Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
DZZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DZZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
DZZ Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
DZZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 1010
Calmar Ratio Rank
DZZ Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

GLDM
GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

DZZ vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ) 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.


DZZGLDMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.25

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.05

1.72

-1.67

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.07

4.23

-4.15

DZZ vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DZZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.02, which is lower than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DZZ 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


DZZGLDMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.02

1.25

-1.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.07

1.05

-1.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.24

1.02

-1.26

Drawdowns

DZZ vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DZZ drawdown since its inception was -96.64%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DZZ and GLDM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


DZZGLDMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-96.64%

-21.63%

-75.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-80.84%

-19.14%

-61.70%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-80.84%

-19.14%

-61.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-80.84%

-20.92%

-59.92%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-80.84%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-95.40%

-16.95%

-78.45%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-82.30%

-6.22%

-76.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

53.43%

7.76%

+45.67%

Volatility

DZZ vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ) has a higher volatility of 30.48% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 5.47%. This indicates that DZZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


DZZGLDMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

30.48%

5.47%

+25.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

59.82%

23.00%

+36.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

169.50%

26.38%

+143.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

83.65%

17.90%

+65.75%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

64.06%

16.85%

+47.21%

DZZ vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DZZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

DZZ vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither DZZ nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


DZZ and GLDM have a correlation of -0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DZZ has higher volatility (30.48%) compared to GLDM (5.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DZZ dropped -96.64% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.69% vs -5.74% for DZZ. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 5.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.69% return vs -5.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DZZ.

DZZ and GLDM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

DZZ is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while GLDM is Gold. DZZ tracks Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index-Optimum Yield Gold (-200%), while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: Deutsche Bank and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for DZZ and 0.10% for GLDM.

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 0.02), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DZZ and GLDM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer