EBND vs. GLDM
EBND (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - EBND is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Emerging Market Local Currency Government Diversified, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EBND returned 0.03%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EBND charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.
Performance
EBND vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EBND achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's 3.00% return.
EBND
- 1D
- -0.57%
- 1M
- 0.59%
- YTD
- -0.23%
- 6M
- 0.63%
- 1Y
- 5.78%
- 3Y*
- 5.59%
- 5Y*
- 0.03%
- 10Y*
- 1.72%
GLDM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- -1.62%
- YTD
- 3.00%
- 6M
- 5.60%
- 1Y
- 32.42%
- 3Y*
- 31.49%
- 5Y*
- 18.49%
- 10Y*
- —
EBND vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EBND SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF | -0.23% | 15.83% | -2.70% | 9.02% | -11.84% | -9.66% | 4.49% | 10.40% | 0.86% |
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | 3.00% | 64.20% | 27.08% | 13.04% | -0.47% | -4.01% | 25.10% | 18.10% | 1.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between EBND and GLDM is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018 | 0.41 |
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
EBND vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank
EBND
GLDM
EBND vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) 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.
| EBND | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | 1.25 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.88 | 1.70 | -0.83 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.93 | 4.23 | -1.30 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EBND | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.84 | 1.24 | -0.40 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.00 | 1.04 | -1.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.10 | 1.02 | -0.91 |
Drawdowns
EBND vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EBND drawdown since its inception was -29.51%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EBND and GLDM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EBND | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.51% | -21.63% | -7.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.63% | -19.14% | +12.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.25% | -19.14% | +9.89% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.57% | -20.92% | -6.65% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -29.50% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.24% | -17.65% | +14.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.87% | -6.22% | -4.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.98% | 7.69% | -5.71% |
Volatility
EBND vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF (EBND) is 2.35%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.47%. This indicates that EBND 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EBND | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.35% | 5.47% | -3.12% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.94% | 22.99% | -17.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.92% | 26.39% | -19.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.98% | 17.91% | -8.93% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.19% | 16.85% | -7.66% |
EBND vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison
EBND has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
EBND vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison
EBND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.83%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EBND SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Emerging Markets Local Bond ETF | 5.83% | 5.54% | 5.89% | 5.26% | 4.75% | 3.83% | 3.67% | 4.68% | 4.70% | 2.00% |
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EBND and GLDM have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to EBND (2.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EBND dropped -29.51% vs GLDM's -21.63%.
On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs 0.03% for EBND. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, EBND has been the lower-risk option at 2.35%. 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 18.49% return vs 0.03%. 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 0.30% for EBND.
EBND has the higher dividend yield at 5.83%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.
EBND is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while GLDM is Gold. EBND tracks Bloomberg Emerging Market Local Currency Government Diversified, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for EBND and 0.10% for GLDM.
GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 0.84), 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.
Find the right allocation for EBND 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